Category: USA

The once strong alliance between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk came apart abruptly on Thursday amid a fierce disagreement over Trump’s proposed tax legislation currently awaiting Senate approval.

In a sharp rebuke, Trump referred to Musk as “crazy” and hinted at severing federal contracts with Musk’s various companies, which include Tesla, the aerospace giant SpaceX, and the AI venture xAI. Following Trump’s remarks, Tesla’s stock suffered a significant drop, and Musk reacted by announcing that SpaceX would start dismantling its Dragon spacecraft program without delay due to what he deemed as threatening behavior from the president.

According to Trump, Musk—who had previously been a top advisor—opposes the sweeping tax package primarily because it removes tax credits for electric vehicles and because Trump decided not to nominate Musk’s chosen candidate, Jared Isaacman, to lead NASA. “I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Just a week earlier, he had praised Musk’s involvement in the DOGE project, aimed at slashing government spending and cutting down on the federal workforce.

Reflecting on their past, Trump added, “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.”

Musk quickly responded through a terse post on his platform, X, simply stating, “Whatever.” He has publicly opposed the bill on the grounds that it would drive up federal deficits. In a more detailed critique, Musk posted, “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful.”

Further escalating tensions, Musk tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” asserting that his contributions were pivotal to Trump’s political fortunes. He went on to say, “Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” referring to the 2024 elections. Musk had poured over $250 million into Trump’s re-election campaign, making him the largest donor to that effort. “Such ingratitude,” Musk concluded in a follow-up post.

The billionaire CEO also launched a poll on X, asking, “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”—a clear sign of his disillusionment with current political alignments.

The spat had immediate financial implications as Tesla’s share value dropped more than 8% amid the very public fallout between Musk and Trump. The conflict comes after several days of Musk lambasting the bill, which Trump has described as his “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” on the grounds that it would inflate federal deficits. Musk had previously labeled the legislation a “disgusting abomination.”

Just days before the verbal feud, Trump had hosted Musk at an Oval Office event and commended him for his role in federal fiscal initiatives. However, things took a turn when the president rescinded his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire favored by Musk, to head NASA. “You know, I’ve always liked Elon,” Trump said on Thursday. “I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible.”

Trump emphasized that Musk’s objections seemed tied to financial incentives for electric vehicles being cut from the bill. “Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate, and you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,” he explained. “And you know, they’re having a hard time, the electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy.”

According to Trump, Musk was not only aware of the proposed elimination of EV tax credits, but had accepted it earlier in the process. “Elon knew this from the beginning,” Trump stated. “He knew it … a long time ago.”

Trump also criticized Musk for what he sees as a sudden and opportunistic shift in position. “I’m very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it,” Trump said.

“But all of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair,” Trump added.

Regarding the withdrawn NASA nomination, Trump explained, “I’m sure [Musk] respected him, but to run NASA … I didn’t think it was appropriate.” He also pointed out Isaacman’s political leanings as a factor. “You happen to be a Democrat, like totally Democrat,” Trump remarked. “And I say, you know, look, we won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges we don’t have to appoint a Democrat. NASA is very important.”

Trump hinted that Musk’s change in tone followed a common pattern he had observed with other former allies. “People leave my administration, and they love us. And then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don’t know what it is,” Trump noted.

“It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it,” he added. “But we have it with others too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamor is gone.”

In sum, the dramatic unraveling of the Trump-Musk relationship underscores the growing divide between pro-business conservatives and the evolving priorities of Trump’s economic agenda. What began as a fruitful partnership rooted in mutual ambitions for innovation and deregulation has now devolved into a public clash over subsidies, spending, and political loyalty—with potentially lasting consequences for both men.

The U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.2% in the first quarter of 2025, marking its first decline in three years. According to a revised estimate released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, the economic downturn was largely driven by President Donald Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of tariffs, which disrupted normal business activity. The updated figure was a slight improvement from the government’s original estimate, though it still reflects an overall slowdown in economic momentum.

A key factor behind the drop was a significant increase in imports during the first three months of the year. Companies rushed to bring in foreign goods ahead of the president’s widely publicized tariff hikes. This surge in imports, while representing increased spending on foreign products, had a negative effect on GDP calculations because imported goods are not counted as part of domestic production.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the nation’s economic activity, had expanded by 2.4% in the final quarter of 2024. However, the sudden spike in imports in early 2025 reversed that growth. Imports jumped at a remarkable annual rate of 42.6%, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2020, and this alone subtracted more than five percentage points from GDP. In addition to the impact of trade, consumer spending also experienced a marked slowdown.

Federal government expenditures contributed further to the decline. Spending fell at an annual rate of 4.6% from January through March, representing the largest contraction in federal outlays in three years.

The way imports affect GDP is primarily a technical matter. Imports are subtracted from the GDP calculation to ensure that only domestically produced goods and services are counted. As an example, when an American consumer buys Costa Rican coffee, it shows up as consumer spending. But because the product was not made in the United States, it is later subtracted to avoid distorting the true level of domestic production.

Economists believe the unusual import surge observed in the first quarter is unlikely to recur in the second quarter, which spans April through June. As a result, imports are not expected to exert the same downward pressure on GDP in the next government report.

Despite the overall contraction, there were some areas of strength within the economy. Business investment grew at a robust annual rate of 24.4% in the first quarter. One reason for this was that companies increased their inventories in anticipation of the tariffs, boosting overall economic activity. This buildup of inventories added more than 2.6 percentage points to GDP growth during the quarter.

A specific measure within the GDP data that reflects the core strength of the economy rose by 2.5% annually in the first quarter. This figure, while lower than the 2.9% rate recorded in the previous quarter, still suggests the economy maintains a solid foundation. This core measurement includes consumer spending and private investment but excludes more volatile components like exports, government spending, and changes in inventories.

Still, the outlook for the economy remains clouded by policy uncertainty stemming from President Trump’s aggressive trade stance. His administration has implemented 10% tariffs on nearly every trading partner worldwide, in addition to targeted levies on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. These actions have led to significant unease among businesses and consumers, and their long-term effects remain uncertain.

This week, a federal court added to the uncertainty by blocking some of the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration. The court ruled that the president had exceeded his legal authority by imposing 10% tariffs and other specific duties on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. The ruling could lead to further legal and political challenges to the administration’s trade policy and may complicate efforts to renegotiate trade agreements.

The Commerce Department’s report issued Thursday is the second in a series of three estimates for the first quarter’s GDP. A final, more comprehensive revision is scheduled to be released on June 26. This upcoming report will incorporate additional economic data and provide a more complete picture of the country’s economic performance during the early months of 2025.

Overall, while the first quarter’s economic decline reflects real challenges tied to trade policy and consumer caution, some underlying metrics continue to show resilience. But as the legal and economic implications of the president’s tariffs play out, businesses and policymakers alike will be watching closely for signs of either recovery or further disruption.

The report paints a complex picture: on one hand, it reflects the drag caused by an extraordinary surge in imports and reduced government spending, and on the other, it reveals solid business investment and a still-growing core economy. Whether those strengths will be enough to offset continued trade tensions in future quarters remains to be seen.

Economists and analysts have emphasized that while GDP is a critical gauge of economic health, short-term changes can be volatile, especially when influenced by policy-driven shifts such as tariffs. Still, the drop in GDP, even if slight, has raised concerns.

President Trump has framed his tariff strategy as a means to bolster American industry and reduce the country’s trade deficit. However, the short-term outcome, at least as captured in this latest GDP report, has been mixed. The administration’s efforts have triggered import spikes, supply chain disruptions, and a response from trading partners, all of which have fed into the current economic narrative.

What happens next will depend in part on how businesses adapt to the new trade environment and whether consumer spending rebounds in the coming months. The final GDP report in June will be a critical indicator, not just for economists but for the broader public and political leadership heading into the second half of the year.

As the nation waits for further economic updates, the first quarter’s data is a reminder of how interconnected global trade, domestic policy, and consumer behavior truly are—and how quickly shifts in one area can ripple across the entire economy.

The White House is preparing to send a series of proposed rescissions to Capitol Hill, using a process that enables the cancellation of previously approved spending. This move is aimed at reinforcing some of the spending cuts outlined in the Deficit-Offset Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. According to a spokesperson from the Office of Management and Budget, the proposed package includes a $1.1 billion reduction from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency responsible for funding NPR and PBS. In addition, it outlines an $8.3 billion cut in foreign aid expenditures.

Elon Musk, the high-profile entrepreneur and political donor, has recently reflected on his time engaging with the government, revealing a more subdued and realistic tone. Describing his frustrations with bureaucracy, Musk remarked, “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Musk also disclosed that he plans to reduce his political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he stated, suggesting a pullback from his earlier, more active political engagement.

Previously, Musk had been highly motivated by the prospect of reshaping the political landscape in Washington. He had contributed over $250 million to support President Donald Trump’s campaign. Musk also participated in campaign rallies and wore campaign-themed hats at White House events. He frequently warned about excessive government spending, which he described as a fundamental crisis. Throughout this period, Musk consistently expressed strong support for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk said in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump responded with praise of his own, calling Musk “a truly great American.” When Tesla experienced a downturn in sales, Trump demonstrated his loyalty by transforming the White House driveway into a temporary display area for Tesla vehicles, signaling his support.

Despite Musk’s waning involvement with the administration, it’s uncertain whether his recent critiques will significantly influence the ongoing legislative discussions. During the post-election transition period, when Musk’s influence was peaking, he played a role in stirring opposition to a proposed spending package. This occurred at a time when the nation was teetering on the edge of a government shutdown.

His latest remarks may serve to galvanize Republicans who are calling for even steeper spending reductions. One notable reaction came from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who shared a Fox News article about Musk’s comments. He added his own opinion on the bill’s prospects, stating that there was “still time to fix it.”

Lee further emphasized the need for a tougher stance in the Senate version of the bill. “The Senate version will be more aggressive,” he asserted. “It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

When the House of Representatives recently voted on the measure, only two Republican lawmakers—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against it. Their dissent was noteworthy, especially in light of Musk’s public statements.

Davidson acknowledged Musk’s comments on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis of the bill’s fiscal implications. According to their estimates, the bill’s tax provisions would raise federal deficits by approximately $3.8 trillion over the next ten years. In contrast, the spending reductions affecting Medicaid, food assistance programs, and other services are projected to save just over $1 trillion during the same timeframe.

Despite this imbalance, House Republican leaders argue that the bill could still be fiscally sound if it stimulates enough economic growth. They claim that improved economic performance might render the legislation either neutral or even beneficial in terms of deficit reduction. However, this optimistic assessment is not universally shared.

Independent analysts remain skeptical of those projections. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the legislation would actually increase the national debt by $3 trillion over the next decade, including interest costs.

This debate comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the federal government’s fiscal discipline. The combination of growing deficits and competing priorities has forced lawmakers into difficult conversations about what to fund and what to cut. The White House’s rescission package is an effort to show seriousness about reducing spending, even if the broader legislative path remains uncertain.

Elon Musk is stepping down from his government position as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, where he had led efforts to trim and restructure the federal bureaucracy. His resignation, announced on Wednesday evening, brings to a close a contentious chapter marked by significant layoffs, agency reductions, and legal battles. Despite bold ambitions, Musk struggled to adjust to the political climate in Washington and ultimately achieved far less than he had initially hoped.

Initially, Musk had aimed to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but he gradually scaled back his goal—first to $1 trillion, and then to $150 billion—as he faced mounting opposition. The billionaire entrepreneur grew increasingly disillusioned with the resistance he encountered, often finding himself at odds with senior figures in Trump’s administration. These internal conflicts emerged as Musk tried to restructure various departments, drawing significant political criticism in the process.

Although Musk’s advisory role was always intended to be short-term, he had lately been indicating a shift in focus back to his businesses, including electric car manufacturer Tesla and aerospace firm SpaceX. Yet officials within the administration remained vague about the precise timing of his departure. The public only learned of it when Musk made an abrupt announcement on X, his social media platform.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk posted. “The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

An unnamed White House official later confirmed Musk’s departure.

Musk’s resignation followed closely on the heels of a CBS interview snippet in which he criticized a central piece of Trump’s legislative agenda. In the interview, Musk said he was “disappointed” with what Trump had dubbed his “big beautiful bill,” a sweeping piece of legislation combining tax cuts with stricter immigration enforcement.

Calling the measure a “massive spending bill,” Musk argued that it undermined the objectives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency he led. “I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,” Musk remarked. “But I don’t know if it could be both.”

Responding from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump defended his legislative initiative by pointing to the delicate negotiations involved. “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” the president said, suggesting the bill was still subject to change. “We’re going to see what happens. It’s got a way to go.”

The legislation had already passed the House and was being debated in the Senate. Musk’s critiques have found support among some Republicans. “I sympathize with Elon being discouraged,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin during an appearance at the Milwaukee Press Club. Johnson noted he was “pretty confident” that enough opposition existed to “slow this process down until the president, our leadership, gets serious” about reducing spending. He added that no amount of pressure from Trump would sway him from that stance.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged the Senate to avoid major amendments to the bill, emphasizing that House Republicans had achieved a “very delicate balance” that could be destabilized by significant changes. Since the House will need to vote again if the Senate alters the legislation, any shifts risk derailing the fragile consensus.

On the day Musk stepped down, Speaker Johnson thanked him for his service and affirmed that the House would continue pushing for further spending reductions. “The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings,” Johnson stated.

To support DOGE’s fiscal objectives, the White House is preparing a set of proposed rescissions—moves to cancel previously authorized expenditures—that will be sent to Congress. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the rescission package will target $1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion in foreign aid.

Musk has admitted that his foray into government work was more challenging than he had imagined. “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,” he told The Washington Post. “I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Recently, Musk also indicated he would be cutting back on political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he said.

Initially, Musk had been invigorated by the chance to overhaul Washington. After contributing at least $250 million to Trump’s campaign, he wore campaign hats in the White House, held rallies, and framed excessive government spending as a crisis. He frequently expressed admiration for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk declared in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump reciprocated Musk’s praise, calling him “a truly great American.” At one point, when Tesla’s sales were dipping, Musk even displayed his cars in the White House driveway to emphasize the administration’s support.

With Musk now exiting the administration, it remains uncertain what influence his recent criticisms will have on ongoing legislative debates. During his more influential period, Musk helped rally opposition to a spending bill when the government faced a potential shutdown. His latest remarks could inspire Republicans pushing for more aggressive cuts.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah reposted a Fox News article featuring Musk’s CBS interview and added his own commentary, stating there was “still time to fix it.” He said, “The Senate version will be more aggressive. It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

Only two Republican representatives—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill during the House vote last week. Davidson acknowledged Musk’s critique on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill’s tax elements would raise federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over ten years, while spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps would save just over $1 trillion during the same period.

House Republican leaders insist that the resulting economic growth would counteract the bill’s deficit impact. However, independent analysts are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the bill would add $3 trillion—including interest—to the national debt over the next decade.

From the start of his second term, Donald Trump has pursued a presidency defined not only by sharp rhetoric and personal grievances but by an expansive attempt to consolidate power in the White House. What often appears to be a chaotic stream of attacks against universities, celebrities, corporations, and courts may in fact reflect a unified strategy: to weaken, if not fully dismantle, the system of checks and balances that has defined American governance since the Constitution’s founding.

In recent months, Trump has attacked a range of institutions and individuals—from attempting to block Harvard from enrolling international students to targeting Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift online, and pressuring companies like Walmart and Apple over their trade policy positions. On the surface, this might seem like political improvisation. But many legal scholars and political scientists argue that Trump’s actions aim to erode the very foundations of constitutional governance.

According to these experts, Trump’s second term differs from previous presidencies not just in degree but in kind. While past presidents have tested the boundaries of executive authority, Trump’s efforts appear to combine multiple unprecedented moves—sidelining Congress, challenging judicial rulings, asserting sweeping executive control, and using federal power to penalize perceived enemies in civil society.

Paul Pierson, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the “sheer level of aggression and the speed at which [the administration has] moved” is without precedent. “They are engaging in a whole range of behaviors that I think are clearly breaking through conventional understandings of what the law says, and of what the Constitution says,” Pierson remarked.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute also acknowledges that Trump is advancing the most sweeping vision of presidential authority since Woodrow Wilson. However, Levin predicts that this effort could provoke a counter-reaction, particularly from the Supreme Court, which may seek to reassert limits on presidential power. “The reaction that Trump’s excessive assertiveness will draw from the Court will backfire against the executive branch in the long run,” Levin wrote.

Others aren’t so sure. With the Court’s conservative 6-3 majority, many analysts question whether it will truly rein in Trump’s efforts to expand his authority—raising concerns that America’s constitutional balance might be in serious jeopardy.

A Multi-Front Assault on Constitutional Boundaries

Unlike past presidents who typically challenged one branch of government at a time, Trump’s second term has been marked by a comprehensive campaign to sideline all constitutional constraints simultaneously.

He has marginalized Congress by undermining agencies established by statute, asserting the right to withhold funds Congress has authorized, and bypassing the legislative process to enact major policies—such as on tariffs and immigration—via emergency declarations. He’s refused to enforce laws he dislikes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans American firms from bribing foreign officials.

Within the executive branch, Trump has centralized control through purges of civil servants, inspectors general, and independent regulators—blurring the boundaries between independent oversight and presidential authority. These actions have simultaneously weakened the authority Congress originally built into those agencies to shield them from political interference.

Trump has also challenged judicial authority. He’s resisted federal court orders, such as restoring federal funds and complying with rulings on immigration enforcement. One case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deported immigrant the administration admitted was wrongly removed, yet Trump’s government showed little effort to obey the court’s directive to facilitate his return.

Federalism, too, has been under pressure. Trump’s administration has sought to override blue states by enforcing conservative cultural policies nationwide. He’s pursued controversial arrests of local officials, including a judge in Wisconsin and a mayor in New Jersey. Though charges against the Newark mayor were dropped, a new case was filed against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver—another sign of Trump’s willingness to use federal power against political opponents.

Even more extraordinary is Trump’s assault on civil society. His administration has targeted law firms with Democratic ties, withheld research funds from universities over ideological disagreements, and tried to revoke their tax-exempt status. Trump has even ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue and critics from his first term. Courts have already rejected some of these actions as unconstitutional.

Eric Schickler, co-author of Partisan Nation, says Trump’s strategy to deter other actors from performing their core roles is unprecedented in its scope. “This ability to just deter other actors from exercising their core rights and responsibilities at this kind of scope is something we haven’t had before,” Schickler said.

Yet for many of Trump’s supporters, this aggressive centralization of authority is precisely the point. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key architect of Trump’s governance philosophy, argues that the expansion of presidential power is necessary to undo decades of liberal influence. He contends that bureaucrats and federal agencies have usurped too much authority from elected officials, and the presidency must be “unshackled” to correct that.

Trump put it more bluntly in his first term when he said, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Warnings Echo from the Founding Era

In a nod to American revolutionary tradition, Trump earlier this year signed a proclamation honoring Patrick Henry’s famed “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. However, he omitted a lesser-known but prescient warning from Henry, issued 13 years later when debating the Constitution’s ratification.

Henry feared that the presidency could become a tool for authoritarianism. “If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!” Henry warned. His concerns about the potential for executive abuse were echoed by other Founders, even those who supported the Constitution.

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, argued that the Constitution’s design would prevent tyranny by dividing power across institutions and levels of government. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote. Madison believed this system, bolstered by federalism, would safeguard individual liberty through what he called a “double security.”

Despite the Constitution’s flaws—most egregiously its original accommodation of slavery—the separation of powers functioned relatively well for over two centuries, Pierson and Schickler argue. The diffusion of authority helped prevent any single individual or group from consolidating power.

But the system has weakened in recent decades, as growing polarization and nationalized political identities have eroded the commitment of officeholders to their institutional roles. Instead of defending the prerogatives of Congress, courts, or states, many officials now align themselves primarily with their political party. This shift has reduced the likelihood that members of a president’s party will challenge overreach, enabling figures like Trump to push boundaries further than ever before.

A Fragile System Faces an Uncertain Future

Will Trump’s second term mark a turning point in American constitutional history—one in which presidential power overwhelms the traditional system of checks and balances?

That question is no longer academic. Corey Brettschneider, author of The Presidents and the People, notes that past challenges to civil liberties—from John Adams to Richard Nixon—have often triggered successful public resistance. But even he expresses doubt that such outcomes are guaranteed in today’s polarized climate. “We have these past victories to draw on,” Brettschneider said. “But we shouldn’t be naïve: The system is fragile. We just don’t know if American democracy will survive.”

Yuval Levin remains somewhat more optimistic. He sees the Supreme Court as the last likely counterweight to Trump’s ambitions. While he acknowledges that Congress is unlikely to resist, he believes the Court will ultimately differentiate between a president’s authority over the executive branch and overreach into other branches and civil society.

“So this court will simultaneously strengthen the president’s command of the executive branch,” Levin predicts, “and restrain the president’s attempts to violate the separation of powers.”

Still, even that vision suggests a presidency transformed—and a constitutional system facing a stress test unlike any in modern times.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to one of its lowest points in his second term, according to a new Reuters and Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. This marks a significant shift in public sentiment, as Trump has frequently pointed to strong poll numbers during his presidency to bolster his political standing.

Since his inauguration in January, the polling group has consistently tracked Trump’s approval ratings. These numbers serve as a barometer of public perception and are often cited by the president at campaign rallies and press events. Trump has routinely highlighted favorable polling data throughout his political career to showcase his popularity and leadership.

The importance of these numbers goes beyond mere perception. Falling approval ratings can impact a president’s influence, especially in a deeply divided political climate. Trump, who returned to the White House in January with relatively strong approval, has seen those numbers erode amid controversial policy decisions. One significant factor was his announcement of sweeping tariffs, which drew criticism and may have contributed to the decline in support. Though Trump later announced a 90-day delay on the majority of the tariffs, the initial backlash appears to have left a mark on public opinion.

A continued dip in approval could potentially weaken Trump’s political leverage and reduce the Republican Party’s prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. In a political landscape already marked by division and intense scrutiny, approval ratings remain a crucial indicator of electoral momentum.

The Reuters and Ipsos poll, conducted between May 16 and May 18 among 1,024 U.S. adults, found that Trump’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent. This is the same level he reached in earlier polls from April 21 and April 27. Just one week ago, the same polling group had him at 44 percent. The margin of error for this latest survey is plus or minus 3 percent.

When it comes to specific issues, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The president’s approval rating on the economy sits at 39 percent, while 53 percent of respondents expressed disapproval. On employment and jobs, Trump received a 41 percent approval rating compared to a 49 percent disapproval rate. These figures suggest that concerns about the economy and job market may be driving some of the negative sentiment among voters.

However, not all polls show the same trend. A separate survey conducted by InsiderAdvantage between May 17 and May 19 among 1,000 likely voters painted a more optimistic picture for Trump. That poll found that 55 percent approved of the job he is doing, while 44 percent disapproved. With a similar margin of error of 3 percent, the InsiderAdvantage poll indicates a net approval rating of 11 points. This marks a significant improvement from early May, when the same polling organization found Trump’s net approval rating at just 2 points, with 46 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval.

The uptick in the InsiderAdvantage numbers may be tied to Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East, which appeared to boost his standing among voters. Such trips often allow presidents to demonstrate leadership on the global stage, which can translate into short-term approval boosts.

Political analyst Craig Agranoff commented on the fluctuating numbers in a text message to Newsweek on Tuesday. He said, “His approval rating dipping to 42% in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a troubling trend for his administration, particularly as it aligns with growing public unease over economic policies like tariffs and concerns about governance amid understaffed agencies.”

Agranoff continued, “Given the consistent downward trajectory we’ve seen in recent polls, with disapproval climbing to around 51%, this negative trend could persist unless there’s a significant policy win or shift in public perception. A president typically becomes concerned with low approval ratings when they fall below 40% for a sustained period, as this erodes political capital, weakens legislative leverage, and risks alienating key voter groups; especially independents and moderates, who have shown notable disapproval in recent data.”

He concluded by saying, “For Trump, the challenge will be addressing these economic and credibility concerns swiftly to reverse the slide.”

On social media, the response to the poll numbers has also been swift and pointed. The account Republicans Against Trump posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, “NEW: Donald Trump’s approval rating drops to 42%, per Reuters/Ipsos poll, down two points since early May. Still way too high.”

Despite the varying results between different polls, the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings remains a focal point for both political allies and critics. These numbers are reported regularly across a range of media outlets and pollsters, giving the public and political analysts alike a window into the president’s current standing.

Ultimately, polling data serves as both a reflection of and influence on the political landscape. While approval ratings can shift quickly in response to national or global events, sustained downward trends are often more telling. For President Trump, managing these numbers may prove essential not only to his current influence but also to his party’s fortunes in the next major election cycle. Whether the decline in the Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a lasting issue or a temporary dip remains to be seen. But the stakes, both political and legislative, are high.

As new polling continues to emerge, Trump’s team will likely watch the results closely and consider strategic adjustments. Whether through policy changes, messaging shifts, or public appearances aimed at boosting confidence, the pressure is on to regain ground before the midterm campaigns ramp up. Until then, the conversation surrounding Trump’s approval rating is unlikely to fade from the national spotlight.

In a surprising turn of events, fiscal conservatives on the House Budget Committee blocked a key vote Friday on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping legislative package central to President Donald Trump’s agenda. The 16-21 vote marked a significant setback for Republican leadership, who had hoped to advance the bill to the Senate by Memorial Day. The defeat highlighted growing divisions within the GOP as lawmakers grapple with balancing demands from both fiscal hawks and moderates.

The bill, referred to as OBBB, encountered resistance from five Republican members—Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania. With Republicans only able to afford losing two votes to move the bill forward, Smucker’s switch from yes to no sealed its temporary collapse. His change, however, was a tactical move.

“To be clear—I fully support the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). My vote today in the Budget Committee is a procedural requirement to preserve the committee’s opportunity to reconsider the motion to advance OBBB,” Smucker explained in a post on X.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas called a recess following the failed vote and told committee members not to expect a return Friday. “Go home,” he instructed them, adding he would notify them if a resumption would take place early Monday.

Smucker, offering further clarification, stated that despite unresolved concerns, the committee decided to proceed with the vote because negotiations were making progress. “There were continued, ongoing discussions and we were very close to having a yes,” he said. Smucker remained optimistic, expressing hope for a resolution by Monday. “We’re working through some remaining issues here, there are just a few outstanding issues I think everyone will get to yes, and we’re going to resolve this as quick as we can and hopefully have a vote, ideally on Monday, and we can advance this bill.”

Later in the day, sources informed The Hill that the committee would reconvene Sunday night at 10 p.m., signaling urgency to push the legislation forward.

Throughout the committee markup, negotiations were underway in a nearby room involving House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Despite these efforts, leadership was unable to win over the dissenting members. Roy, one of the Republicans who voted against the bill, criticized its fiscal shortcomings. “This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits,” he said during the markup.

Norman echoed Roy’s sentiment, voicing his dissatisfaction with the measure. “Sadly, I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out,” he declared, calling the bill’s current state “very disappointing.”

The OBBB package merges several major components of Trump’s legislative platform. It extends the tax cuts from his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, implements entitlement reform, and slashes food assistance programs—measures that Republicans claim will save at least $1.5 trillion over ten years. These changes include tightened work requirements for Medicaid targeting “able-bodied” adults, which are expected to cause millions to lose coverage, the repeal of green energy tax credits enacted by Democrats in 2022, and for the first time, requiring states to help fund food assistance programs.

Although House committees had completed detailed markups on these sections earlier in the week, final negotiations were still underway. Moderate Republicans were pushing for an increase in the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which was currently set at $30,000 in the draft. Fiscal conservatives, in contrast, wanted corresponding spending cuts to offset any tax relief expansion.

To satisfy the hawks, conservatives proposed several adjustments, including speeding up the implementation of the new Medicaid work requirements and advancing the timeline to eliminate green energy subsidies. Additionally, they proposed reducing the federal Medicaid match rate for populations covered under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion—changes likely to alienate moderates.

Norman insisted on firm commitments before backing the bill. “It’s a sticking point because it’s huge money,” he said. “I’m tired of smoke and mirrors.”

Scalise confirmed that Republicans were coordinating closely with the Trump administration on timing-related provisions of the package, which emerged as a major point of contention. “What they want to see is progress and get answers on some of the questions and expedite the timelines,” Scalise said. He emphasized the shared GOP goals: “We’re all in agreement on the reforms we want to make. We want to have work requirements, we want to phase out a lot of these green subsidies.”

Scalise added that some delays were unavoidable. “How quickly can you get it done? And it’s not as quick as saying you just turn it off tomorrow,” he explained. “Some things the administration does have to actually create a process to implement it, and we want to make sure that the Trump administration has the time they need while pushing it as fast as possible. So those are the conversations we’re having and we’re making a lot of progress.”

The stakes were underscored by the unexpected arrival of Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas at the markup, despite recently welcoming his second child. “I’m here to support the president’s agenda,” Gill told reporters as he entered the hearing.

Amid the tense negotiations, Trump directly intervened via his platform, Truth Social, urging Republicans to stop stalling and unite behind the bill. “We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!” he wrote.

The post was clearly aimed at the dissenting members, though it didn’t sway Norman. When asked about Trump’s remarks, Norman responded, “I don’t need to grandstand. This is: how do you disagree with the agenda he laid out? He’s a smart guy, and he’s got so many good things [in the bill]. All we’re asking is [for] a little compromise somewhere.” He continued, “Let’s not give the farm. It’s not right. It’s not right.”

Despite the initial blow, Republican leaders are expected to continue pushing for a resolution by early next week. As negotiations continue, both sides within the GOP remain firm in their positions—fiscal hawks demanding deeper savings and accelerated reforms, and moderates seeking relief for high-tax states. The outcome will determine whether Trump’s sprawling legislative agenda can gain the traction needed to advance to the Senate and potentially reshape key federal programs.

As Elon Musk exits his position leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a growing number of experts in public administration are voicing concern that the initiative has failed to enhance government services—and may have, in fact, harmed them.

“Doge is not offering any solid claims that it has improved services in any way,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “Rather, it has made the quality of some government services worse.”

Musk, currently the world’s wealthiest individual, was tapped by Donald Trump in January to oversee the administration’s efficiency efforts. Appointed as a “special government employee,” Musk was restricted from serving more than 180 days. With his tenure now over and ongoing challenges in his business empire demanding attention, Musk is stepping away—but not without making some bold claims.

Despite widespread skepticism, Musk has declared that Doge achieved $150 billion in savings. However, numerous budget analysts dispute this figure, citing a pattern of Musk making inflated and inaccurate claims. The touted savings also fall significantly short of Musk’s originally stated goal of trimming $1 trillion from government expenditures.

Public policy specialists like Moynihan argue that Musk and Doge focused more on applying a cutthroat, private-sector mindset of slashing payrolls than on actually making government work better for citizens. Rather than investing in long-term service improvements, they accuse Doge of resorting to mass layoffs and quick budget cuts.

Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, described the project as reckless. “They were the ‘department of government slash and burn’,” she said. “There doesn’t seem to be an approach to dig in on places where government services could really be improved. Any improvement in government services takes time. You have to invest. You have to build it out. You have to figure out how to fix it.”

Asked whether Doge had improved any services, Gimbel laughed before replying: “No. There has clearly been a degeneration of government services.”

Indeed, both experts and everyday citizens have reported worsening conditions in several areas. Veterans’ hospitals now require longer wait times for appointments. Calls to the Internal Revenue Service take longer to be answered. Social Security offices are increasingly crowded, and the departure of many experienced workers has left less-qualified staff giving out advice on benefits.

At a White House press conference on May 1, Musk defended his tenure. “In the grand scheme of things, I think we’ve been effective. Not as effective as I’d like. I think we could be more effective,” he said. “But we’ve made progress.”

Musk admitted, however, that achieving his $1 trillion savings goal proved far more difficult than anticipated. “It’s sort of, how much pain is the cabinet and the Congress willing to take?” he said. “It can be done, but it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.”

Despite Musk’s claims of progress, the White House declined to answer questions from the Guardian about deteriorating services or to offer examples of improved outcomes due to Doge’s efforts.

Gimbel warned that conditions are likely to worsen as the full impact of Doge’s job cuts plays out in the coming months. “Things will definitely get worse,” she said, pointing to the administration’s ongoing efforts to eliminate 80,000 positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs as just one example.

While Trump and Musk have frequently alleged widespread waste and fraud across government agencies, Gimbel said there’s a clear difference between targeted reform and indiscriminate cutting. “There is waste, and you can go after it,” she said. “People who have been in government know where those places are. There is a ton of tech that needs modernizing. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that. There’s a lot of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that either. What you have is a relatively expensive exercise in slash-and-burn that sometime in the future will cost a lot to fix.”

Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit focused on government effectiveness, also expressed alarm. He likened Doge’s approach unfavorably to the strategies of former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, known for cost-cutting. “Jack Welch would be appalled by the approach that Doge has taken,” Stier said. “It’s not actually about cost-cutting. It’s about capability destroyed. Jack Welch would never, ever have fired people without having a real understanding about the way the organization worked and about the qualities of people who were being fired. This is an arbitrary exercise that has moved out employees who are often by far the most qualified rather than the least qualified.”

Stier dismissed Trump’s portrayal of Doge as a model of efficient reform. “That’s just not the case,” he said. “It’s hard to offer any rational basis for the decisions that are being made. There certainly aren’t any improvements that the American public will see.”

He warned of deeper consequences. “It’s burning down government capability,” he said. “It’s unquestionably clear that they are firing people willy-nilly and are disrupting government services without any understanding of the consequences or concern about the consequences. It’s a break-it-is-to-fix-it mentality. It isn’t a mentality that predominates in Silicon Valley. It’s sheer reckless behavior in the public sector because real people get hurt.”

Musk’s $150 billion savings figure, according to Stier, ignores the true costs of the upheaval. His organization estimates that Doge’s moves—through layoffs, rehirings, severance packages, paid leave, and lost productivity for over 100,000 workers—will ultimately cost taxpayers $135 billion in the current fiscal year. The broader public’s increased wait times and reduced service quality should also be factored in, experts argue.

Moynihan asserted that Musk’s entire philosophy was flawed. “His vision is that there is no way that government employees can produce anything of value,” Moynihan said. “So the idea of tools that makes government services better is completely alien to the Musk mindset.”

He added, “I think he believes that nothing public employees do has any real value, that they are not capable employees and therefore cutting them will do no harm. It’s a vision that doesn’t understand what public services are, why they exist and how they benefit people.”

Moynihan was especially critical of Musk for dismantling key initiatives designed to modernize government services, including gutting efforts to use technology more effectively and ending the Direct File program, which allowed citizens to file their taxes simply and at no cost.

Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said Doge’s budget slashing would deeply harm workers. She highlighted cuts to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency that conducts crucial research to ensure the safety of firefighters’ equipment. “There’s this notion that Doge is just cutting line items on a spreadsheet. It’s hurting real lives and real people,” Shuler said. “They’ve treated federal workers with blatant disregard and have been nothing short of dehumanizing and insulting toward them.”

Gimbel also cautioned about future public health risks tied to Doge’s actions. “Part of what government does is mitigate risk,” she explained. “Take food safety. Government inspectors decrease the risk that you will get listeria or salmonella. But when they reduce the number of food inspectors, will you get listeria or salmonella tomorrow? No. Will it probably increase the chances of people getting listeria and salmonella over the next five years? Yes.”

In the end, while Musk and Trump have promoted Doge as a bold effort to streamline government, many experts see it as a destructive campaign that has caused real damage with few, if any, public benefits.

President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled its 2026 budget proposal on Friday, presenting a sweeping reconfiguration of federal spending priorities. The budget reflects the president’s broader vision for his second term, aligning with the direction set in his first 100 days back in office and marked by abrupt terminations of federal personnel.

This proposal includes dramatic reductions, or complete eliminations, of spending in numerous domestic programs. Key targets include child care services, disease research, renewable energy initiatives, and U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad. Many of these cuts are already in progress under the guidance of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. At the same time, the plan boosts funding by billions of dollars for Trump’s high-priority immigration enforcement and mass deportation policies.

Trump’s administration maintains its commitment to ending what it calls “woke programs.” This includes the elimination of preschool grants to states that run diversity programs. It also follows through on Trump’s vow to put an end to what he refers to as the “weaponization of government,” by slashing funding for the Internal Revenue Service, despite criticism that he himself is leveraging government power against perceived adversaries.

Overall, the White House estimates that the proposal reduces domestic spending by $163 billion, or 22.6 percent below current funding levels. In contrast, Trump seeks to inject $375 billion in new funding for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. This funding surge is part of what Trump calls his “big, beautiful bill” — a legislative package combining significant tax cuts with major reductions in spending. He insists this is essential to repel what he characterizes as a “foreign invasion,” even as data shows migrant arrivals at historic lows.

House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the plan, describing it as “a bold blueprint that reflects the values of hardworking Americans and the commitment to American strength and prosperity.”

Although presidential budgets are not legally binding, they often serve as guiding documents in the fiscal debates that unfold in Congress. Trump’s 2026 proposal is his first since returning to the White House and offers insight into his second-term ambitions and the broader Republican agenda on Capitol Hill.

The timing of the budget also intersects with Trump’s ongoing imposition of tariffs, which many view as a de facto tax increase. These tariffs, totaling potentially hundreds of billions of dollars, have sparked global trade tensions. Consumers, CEOs, and international leaders alike worry that this trade war could tilt the U.S. economy toward a downturn.

In an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Trump rejected claims that a recession was looming. When host Kristen Welker brought up Wall Street analysts’ growing concerns, Trump responded, “Well, you know, you say, some people on Wall Street say. Well, I tell you something else. Some people on Wall Street say that we’re going to have the greatest economy in history.”

Democrats were quick to criticize the budget as harmful to average Americans. Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said, “President Trump has made his priorities clear as day: he wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans,” while simultaneously “he shovels massive tax breaks at billionaires like himself and raises taxes on middle-class Americans with his reckless tariffs.”

The budget outline was presented by the White House Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought. A key architect of Project 2025 from the conservative Heritage Foundation, Vought provided only topline figures in a leaner, “skinny” version of the full budget.

It addresses discretionary spending, which currently totals about $1.83 trillion annually across defense and nondefense sectors. Under Trump’s plan, this amount would drop by $163 billion, bringing it down to $1.69 trillion. However, this figure represents only a fraction of the government’s nearly $7 trillion overall budget, which includes mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

In recent years, federal budgets have steadily grown, as have deficits, which now approach $2 trillion annually. Interest payments on the national debt alone are nearing $1 trillion per year, driven in part by emergency COVID-19 spending, tax reforms that cut revenue, and rising costs tied to aging-related health care. The U.S. national debt currently stands at $36 trillion.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, emphasized the need for a comprehensive solution. “We need a budget that tells the full story, and it should control spending, reduce borrowing, bring deficits down,” she said.

Key proposals in the budget include slashing the State Department and international programs by 84 percent, leaving them with just $9.6 billion. This includes drastic reductions to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Department of Health and Human Services would be cut by $33.3 billion, and the Department of Education would see a $12 billion decrease. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health face major funding reductions.

Conversely, the Department of Defense would receive an additional $113.3 billion, and the Department of Homeland Security would gain another $42.3 billion, subject to congressional approval of Trump’s broader legislative plan. However, this defense funding boost has not been universally embraced among Republicans.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former GOP Senate Leader, labeled the defense spending hike a “gimmick.” He added, “America cannot expect our allies to heed calls for greater annual defense spending if we are unwilling to lead by example. Fortunately, Presidential budget requests are just that: requests. Congress will soon have an opportunity to ensure that American power – and the credibility of our commitments – are appropriately resourced.”

The power to determine federal spending lies with Congress, which must pass legislation to fund agencies and programs. That process often breaks down, leading to temporary funding measures to prevent government shutdowns. Lawmakers are currently working on Trump’s “big bill” that pairs tax reductions with massive spending cuts and expanded deportation efforts — unlike the budget blueprint, this package would carry legal authority.

Russell Vought is expected to appear before Congress in the coming weeks to defend the administration’s proposals. A veteran of Trump’s first term, Vought played a significant role in shaping the current vision. He also authored a detailed section in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 outlining a major overhaul of the federal government.

Vought is separately preparing a $9 billion package aimed at defunding both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which includes PBS and NPR. Late Thursday, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other agencies to halt funding for public media.

Vought has indicated that this $9 billion proposal would be only the first in a series of so-called “budget rescissions.” These measures are designed to test how willing lawmakers are to go on record supporting significant funding rollbacks.

Many Americans may only now begin to experience the tangible impact of President Donald Trump’s broad tariff policies. That’s because a key shipping exemption known as the de minimis rule officially expired just after midnight on Friday. This rule had previously allowed goods valued at $800 or less to enter the United States without tariffs, bypassing many inspections and bureaucratic procedures.

The de minimis loophole was pivotal in transforming American shopping habits. It enabled Chinese online retailers such as Shein, Temu, and AliExpress to deliver a wide range of ultra-affordable products—from craft supplies and patio décor to clothing and camera gear—directly into American homes. With its removal, baseline tariffs as steep as 145% are now being imposed on Chinese imports, which could more than double the cost of items that bargain-hunting consumers have come to rely on.

This development is reverberating across social media platforms, where consumers are reacting with alarm. For the first time, abstract trade policy is being translated into something consumers can physically see: a higher receipt at checkout.

Shipping giants including UPS, FedEx, DHL, and the U.S. Postal Service report they are ready to handle the change. A spokesperson from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) affirmed to CNN, “We are prepared and equipped to carry out enhanced package screenings and enforce orders effectively.”

However, whether the average American consumer is truly prepared for these changes is another story.

Earlier this year, when Trump first curtailed the de minimis exemption for shipments originating from Hong Kong and China, the consequences were immediate and disruptive. The U.S. Postal Service briefly halted parcel deliveries from China, and packages that were shipped experienced substantial delays with little to no tracking available domestically.

At the core of the disruption is the sheer volume of affected shipments. A congressional research report found that over 80% of all U.S. e-commerce shipments in 2022 were classified as de minimis imports, most of which came from China. According to CBP, the agency processes nearly 4 million of these duty-free shipments daily, and the total number of such packages in the last fiscal year reached 1.36 billion.

This enormous volume includes everything from dog accessories and kids’ bead kits to kitchen tools and trinkets. Regular users of platforms like Temu and Shein told CNN that these sites have become increasingly popular as American-made products grow less affordable.

“I can’t afford to buy from Temu now, and I already couldn’t afford to buy in this country,” said Rena Scott, a 64-year-old retired nurse from Virginia, in a comment to CNN Business.

The new policy is likely to hit lower-income households the hardest. Research from economists at UCLA and Yale in February revealed that 48% of de minimis shipments were delivered to the poorest zip codes in the U.S., while only 22% went to the wealthiest areas.

This shift might not be instantaneous but is expected to unfold gradually. Even before the exemption officially expired, retailers like Shein and Temu began adjusting their prices. CNN monitored these hikes in real time.

Shein addressed the change directly in a public notice, stating, “Due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs, our operating expenses have gone up. To keep offering the products you love without compromising on quality, we will be making price adjustments. We’re doing everything we can to keep prices low and minimize the impact on you.”

Temu, meanwhile, is adapting its operational model. A spokesperson told CNN that the platform is increasingly relying on domestic fulfillment and expanding its network of U.S.-based sellers. “Temu’s pricing for U.S. consumers remains unchanged as the platform transitions to a local fulfillment model,” the company said. “All sales in the U.S. are now handled by locally based sellers, with orders fulfilled from within the country.”

It remains uncertain whether further price hikes will occur among these or other online retailers.

Shipping companies are also adjusting to the change. DHL confirmed to CNN that it has “increased our staffing levels in order to support the additional volume of informal entry clearances we anticipate.”

Meanwhile, the tariff changes themselves are significant. Goods from China and Hong Kong transported by major couriers such as UPS, DHL, and FedEx are now subject to a baseline 145% tariff, in addition to specific duties based on the type of product. Items arriving via USPS face a 120% base tariff or a $100 flat fee per item. That flat fee will rise to $200 beginning June 1.

While core supporters of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement continue to stand by him, suggesting in social media posts and interviews that they are willing to weather short-term economic hardship, broader public sentiment is shifting.

A CNN poll conducted by SSRS last month found that 59% of Americans believe Trump’s policies have worsened the U.S. economy. The survey, held between April 17 and 24, came shortly after the White House introduced a series of expansive new tariffs on numerous countries, only to then pause several of them. Nevertheless, 60% of respondents felt Trump’s policies have led to a higher cost of living in their communities.

Now, with the end of the de minimis exemption, those cost increases could become even more noticeable.

At a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump emphasized the significance of the move. “It’s a very, it’s a big deal,” he said. Describing the de minimis rule, he added, “a big scam.” He concluded with, “And we’ve ended, we put an end to it.”

With a stroke of policy, everyday consumers may now find themselves paying more for items they once bought at rock-bottom prices. What was once a behind-the-scenes matter of international trade rules has now become a kitchen table issue for millions of Americans, many of whom are confronting it for the first time not in headlines, but on their receipts.

On Monday, Representative Shri Thanedar, a Democrat from Michigan, publicly announced that he had filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Thanedar’s move marks a significant step in the ongoing political battle over Trump’s actions during his presidency, despite the apparent lack of support for the measure in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

“I have introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump,” Thanedar declared in his online announcement. “When Trump ignores the Constitution, Congress, and the courts, he is not ‘fighting for America.’ He is tearing it down and endangering our democracy.”

Thanedar cited a range of grievances in his seven articles of impeachment, focusing on specific actions by Trump that the congressman deemed abusive of his power. Among the issues raised by Thanedar was the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador, and the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in cutting funding without congressional approval.

Though the filing of the articles has made waves within Democratic circles, the likelihood of these articles advancing in the current political climate appears slim. In the Republican-majority House of Representatives, support from GOP members would be required for a vote on impeachment. Similarly, even if the House were to vote to impeach, a two-thirds majority in the Republican-controlled Senate would be necessary to convict the president. With Republicans maintaining significant control in both chambers, the articles of impeachment are expected to go nowhere.

However, the introduction of the articles is indicative of the deep frustration many Democrats feel with the president, particularly over a variety of issues that have sparked ongoing controversy.

“Donald Trump has already done real damage to our democracy, but defying a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, that has to be the one final straw,” Thanedar said, referring specifically to a Supreme Court decision related to the Abrego Garcia case. “It’s time we impeach Donald J. Trump,” he added emphatically, signaling his belief that this final act of defiance represented a threshold moment for impeachment.

Thanedar also highlighted what he considered to be other impeachable offenses by the president, including his aggressive tariff agenda, which he argued had a damaging impact on global markets. He also referenced Trump’s treatment of the press and concerns about the First Amendment, as well as what he described as the president’s involvement in bribery and corruption within the justice system. In addition, Thanedar expressed concern over Trump’s handling of Americans’ personal data, which he framed as yet another abuse of presidential power.

One of the most significant elements of Thanedar’s argument for impeachment was his accusation of “tyrannical overreach” by the president. “Article seven, tyrannical overreach,” Thanedar said. “Finally, and most importantly, he is attempting to consolidate unchecked power and erode the constitutional limits of the presidency.” This statement underscores Thanedar’s broader concern that Trump’s actions represented a threat to the very foundation of the U.S. political system.

Thanedar’s comments regarding Trump’s power were particularly pointed. “In this country, we have presidents, not kings. That’s not just misconduct. It’s impeachable misconduct,” Thanedar declared, adding that the president’s attempts to undermine constitutional checks and balances were clear grounds for impeachment. His words reflect a deep anxiety among some Democrats that Trump’s behavior threatens the balance of power that the Constitution seeks to maintain between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Democratic concerns over Trump’s intentions have only grown more intense in recent months, especially in light of the president’s suggestion that he might seek a third term in office. This concern was amplified when the Trump Organization began selling “Trump 2028” hats on its official website, further fueling speculation about the possibility of a third presidential run. The idea that Trump might attempt to remain in power beyond his constitutionally-mandated two terms has been a source of significant alarm within Democratic circles.

“If we let this stand, we are saying the president is above the law. That the United States Constitution is optional,” Thanedar argued, emphasizing that such a development would set a dangerous precedent for the future of American democracy. He made it clear that he would not remain silent on the issue, calling on his fellow lawmakers—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike—to join him in standing up against what he views as the erosion of constitutional safeguards.

Thanedar’s call for unity and action was resolute. “I won’t be silent and I’m calling on all my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, to stand up with me,” he stated, underscoring his belief that the nation’s political leaders must put aside partisan differences in order to protect the integrity of the Constitution.

In his final remarks, Thanedar delivered a forceful conclusion to his announcement. “Enough is enough. Donald J. Trump must be impeached,” he said, signaling that he intends to continue pushing for accountability and standing firm in his position despite the considerable political obstacles ahead.

The introduction of impeachment articles by Thanedar is likely to remain a contentious issue within the political landscape, particularly as the nation heads toward the 2024 election cycle. While it seems unlikely that these articles will gain the traction necessary to result in Trump’s removal from office, they reflect the broader dissatisfaction and anger that many Democrats continue to feel toward the president and his actions during his time in office. For Thanedar, the impeachment effort represents not just a call for accountability but a desperate attempt to preserve the constitutional values he believes are under siege.

As the situation unfolds, the future of these articles will largely depend on the political dynamics within Congress and whether enough bipartisan support can be garnered for such an effort. For now, Thanedar’s impeachment move stands as a symbolic gesture in the ongoing debate over Trump’s legacy and the health of American democracy.

The White House has initiated a quiet search for a potential replacement for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly. This development comes in the wake of another controversy involving Hegseth, who is once again under scrutiny for allegedly leaking sensitive military information in a group chat.

According to the source, Hegseth disclosed classified details in a private group conversation using the Signal messaging app on his personal phone. The recipients of this information reportedly included his wife, brother, and legal counsel. The content of the chat allegedly included minute-by-minute updates on U.S. airstrikes targeting Houthi positions in Yemen. This incident is said to have occurred in March, around the same time that Hegseth relayed similar classified information to senior officials at the White House through another Signal group. That group inadvertently included a journalist.

The premature disclosure of strike information could have placed American pilots in harm’s way had it been intercepted by enemy forces. Already, Houthi militants have successfully downed two U.S. Predator drones, raising concerns about potential lapses in operational security.

Despite the allegations, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied any effort to replace Hegseth. In a statement posted on X, she declared, “President Trump stands strongly behind him.” President Trump echoed this sentiment during a press interaction at the White House, dismissing the controversy as overblown. “He’s doing a great job — ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” the president remarked.

Hegseth also pushed back against the allegations during a White House Easter event held earlier in the day. “This is what the media does, they take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people, ruin their reputation. It’s not going to work with me,” Hegseth said in his defense.

The defense secretary’s comments appear to reference the abrupt exits of four high-ranking Pentagon advisers last week. One of them, former Defense Department spokesperson John Ullyot, resigned and subsequently published a strongly-worded opinion article describing recent events at the Pentagon as a “full-blown meltdown” marked by internal disputes that, according to him, are undermining President Trump’s administration.

Three other Pentagon officials—Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darin Selnick—were also removed from their positions and escorted out of the building. These individuals were accused of leaking information to the media, although they have denied any wrongdoing. The trio issued a joint statement on X labeling their removal as “unconscionable” and emphasizing that they had not been informed about the specific nature of the alleged leaks.

“All three of us served our country honorably in uniform — for two of us, this included deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, based on our collective service, we understand the importance of information security and worked every day to protect it,” they wrote in their statement.

Caldwell and Selnick, in particular, have long-standing professional ties with Hegseth, having collaborated with him at Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative advocacy group that has influenced veterans’ policy in recent years.

The unfolding drama has not gone unnoticed by lawmakers. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized Hegseth’s actions and pointed to the larger issue of his qualifications for the job. “But we must not forget that ultimate responsibility here lies with President Trump for selecting a former weekend TV host, without any experience successfully leading a large and complex organization, to run our government’s biggest department and make life and death decisions for our military and country,” she stated.

While the White House maintains public support for Hegseth, the internal deliberations about his future suggest a growing concern over the implications of his actions. The fact that the leak could have compromised national security has escalated the urgency of the situation, particularly as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East and the U.S. military maintains a delicate operational presence in the region.

The controversy has also shed light on the potential security vulnerabilities that arise from using personal devices and encrypted messaging apps for sensitive communications. The Signal app, while popular for its end-to-end encryption, is not authorized for the transmission of classified material by U.S. government officials. The revelation that Hegseth may have used it to share top-secret operational data with non-government individuals raises serious questions about protocol adherence and information governance at the highest levels of national defense.

The March leak incident is particularly alarming because of its proximity to real-time operations. Intelligence and defense analysts worry that such breaches, if exploited by foreign actors, could jeopardize not only the safety of military personnel but also the success of U.S. missions abroad. Given that adversaries such as the Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to down advanced American drones, any additional vulnerabilities could be catastrophic.

Although the administration has made no official announcements regarding a search for a new defense secretary, the internal discussions suggest that the controversy surrounding Hegseth has reached a critical point. The situation could develop further depending on whether more details emerge about the extent and impact of the leaks, and whether Congress or the intelligence community demands a formal investigation.

As the Pentagon reels from internal discord and high-level departures, questions remain about morale within the department and the future direction of U.S. military leadership. If more officials continue to speak out, or if further security lapses come to light, the administration could be forced to re-evaluate its stance on Hegseth despite the president’s current support.

In the meantime, the defense secretary remains defiant, attributing the backlash to politically motivated leaks and disgruntled former colleagues. Whether that narrative will hold up under increasing scrutiny is yet to be seen. The situation underscores the complex and high-stakes nature of leadership at the Pentagon, especially during a time of global instability and growing threats.

For now, Hegseth remains in his position, bolstered by public endorsements from President Trump and the White House. However, the growing controversy surrounding his handling of classified information has sparked concerns that may ultimately determine his political and professional future.

U.S. financial markets were rocked once again as President Donald Trump escalated his public criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, branding him “a major loser” over the central bank’s decision not to cut interest rates. The president demanded that Powell take immediate action to lower borrowing costs in a bid to stimulate the American economy.

Using social media as his platform, Trump urged Powell to slash interest rates “pre-emptively,” accusing the Fed chair of being too slow to react to the evolving economic landscape. “There can be a SLOWING of the economy unless Mr. Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates, NOW,” the president declared in his online post.

Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing concern that his own economic policies—particularly aggressive tariffs—have contributed to market instability and increased the risk of a recession. His ongoing feud with Powell, whom he appointed during his first term in office, has only deepened the market unease.

As a result of the heightened tensions and economic anxiety, U.S. stock indexes suffered steep losses. The S&P 500, a barometer of 500 of America’s most significant companies, dropped by approximately 2.4% on Monday. Since the beginning of the year, the index has declined by around 12%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average mirrored that performance, also falling 2.4% and registering a year-to-date loss of roughly 10%. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq fared even worse, shedding more than 2.5% and posting a staggering 18% decline since January.

The market jitters weren’t confined to the U.S. On Tuesday, trading remained subdued in most Asia-Pacific markets. Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed slightly lower by about 0.1%, and Australia’s ASX 200 declined by roughly 0.3%. In contrast, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index managed a modest gain of about 0.3%.

European markets also reflected the global unease. In early trading, the UK’s FTSE 100 edged down by about 0.05%, while Germany’s DAX index fell by 0.5%. France’s CAC 40 registered a more pronounced drop of 0.6%.

Ordinarily, the U.S. dollar and government bonds are viewed as safe havens during market turmoil. However, even these assets have come under pressure. The dollar index, which gauges the greenback’s strength against a basket of currencies including the euro, fell on Monday to its lowest point since 2022.

In another sign of market unrest, yields on U.S. government bonds climbed on Tuesday, indicating that investors are demanding higher returns to hold onto Treasuries. This trend reflects a lack of confidence in the near-term stability of the U.S. economy.

At the same time, gold prices soared to a record high, breaching the $3,500 per ounce threshold. The surge in the precious metal’s value signals investors’ preference for assets deemed more secure amid uncertain times. Gold is traditionally seen as a safe haven when economic conditions become volatile.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, pointed to multiple global factors boosting gold’s appeal. “No long-term resolution [is] in sight for conflicts around the world, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza,” she noted. “There are also concerns about the risk that geo-political tensions escalate as opportunities in the Arctic are eyed by the US and Russia,” she added.

Meanwhile, tensions are not just limited to economic policies and markets. On the global diplomatic front, China has issued a warning to other nations, urging them not to “appease” the U.S. in trade negotiations. The comments come amid increasing skepticism of American leadership in global economic matters.

Despite the heightened uncertainty, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently stated that a global recession remains unlikely, even with the pressures stemming from U.S. tariffs. However, the IMF also warned that its upcoming country-by-country growth forecasts would include “notable markdowns.”

President Trump’s criticisms of Powell are not new. Throughout his first term, he repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with Powell’s approach to interest rates and even reportedly considered firing him. Following his return to office, Trump has continued to pressure Powell to cut borrowing costs.

This latest attack followed Powell’s remarks cautioning that Trump’s tariff policies could contribute to inflation and impede economic growth. Trump ramped up his criticism last Thursday by publicly calling for Powell’s removal. “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough,” he wrote on social media.

The idea of dismissing the Fed chair is controversial and could face significant legal hurdles. The Federal Reserve has traditionally operated with a high degree of independence to insulate it from short-term political influence. Powell has previously told reporters that he does not believe the president possesses the legal authority to fire him.

Still, the Trump administration appears to be exploring options. One of Trump’s top economic advisers confirmed that discussions about removing Powell were underway, noting this on Friday—a day when the U.S. stock market was closed.

These developments coincide with the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where top financial policymakers have gathered in Washington. The heightened political pressure on the Fed has become a central topic of concern at the gatherings.

Christopher Meissner, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, and a former IMF employee, explained to the BBC’s Today programme that political interference in central banking was more common in the past. “However, the past 30 or 40 years what we’ve learned is that central bank independence is the key to financial stability and low inflation. And I think this is a major reversal and we have to watch out for it,” he warned.

Streeter echoed this view, emphasizing the importance of insulating monetary policymakers from political influence. “The independence of central banks is seen as critical to ensure long-term price stability, ringfencing policymakers from short-term political pressures,” she said.

Looking ahead, the IMF will release its latest economic projections shortly. These forecasts are expected to reflect growing concerns about U.S. economic performance and its potential ripple effects worldwide. “They used to say ‘When the US sneezed, the rest of the world caught a cold’. It’ll be really curious to see if that continues,” said Meissner. “However, I think people are expecting a pretty significant downturn in the US in the coming months… and that can’t be good for the rest of the world.”

Streeter noted that Trump’s policy decisions have undermined the global perception of the U.S. as a stable economic leader. “Yields on 10-year US Treasuries have held onto their recent rise above 4.4%. It’s another sign of unease about the direction of the US economy, amid worries that policies playing out could keep inflation higher and slow growth, and flags the anxiety rattling through the markets right now,” she said.

Goldman Sachs has taken a significantly more negative stance on the U.S. economy and stock market due to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. The firm now joins a growing number of economists warning that the ongoing trade war could push the U.S. into a recession and cause further trouble for stock market investors.

Goldman Sachs economists, led by Ronnie Walker, have adjusted their forecast to anticipate a 15% average tariff rate on all goods this year. This revision came in a Sunday note to clients and reflects Trump’s latest aggressive stance ahead of his scheduled “Liberation Day” tariff announcement on Wednesday. The president has indicated that he intends to impose even steeper tariffs than originally planned.

As a result, Goldman’s economic outlook has become more bearish. The firm has raised its probability of a U.S. recession within the next year from 20% to 35%. Additionally, Goldman economists have revised several key projections. Their end-of-2025 inflation estimate has been increased to 3.5%, up from 2.8% just last month. Their unemployment forecast now stands at 4.5%, which would be the highest since October 2021. Meanwhile, the firm expects gross domestic product (GDP) growth to slow to 1%, the lowest level since 2020.

Stock market expectations have also been downgraded in response to these economic concerns. Goldman strategists, led by David Kostin, warned clients that they expect the S&P 500 index to decline by 5% over the next three months. They have set a price target of 5,300 for the index in that time frame. Over the next year, they project the S&P 500 will rise by only 6%, setting a new year-ahead target of 5,900. This marks a substantial downward revision from Goldman’s previous forecast of 6,500, which was issued as recently as February 28. The nearly 10% cut in expectations reflects the increasing uncertainty surrounding Trump’s trade policies.

Big Number

6.3%—That is how much the S&P 500 declined in March through Friday’s close, putting it on track for its worst month since September 2022. This figure does not even account for an additional drop of more than 1% in premarket trading on Monday.

Key Background

On Sunday, Trump announced that he plans to impose “substantial” import taxes on “all countries” through his new reciprocal tariff policy. This marks a shift from his position just a week earlier, when he suggested that the upcoming tariffs would be “more lenient.”

Trump’s top economic official, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, has acknowledged that a recession is possible but has argued that any downturn would be due to unsustainable economic growth fueled by excessive government spending and imbalanced trade relationships. However, some economists have cautioned that Trump’s policies could push the U.S. into an avoidable recession. UCLA Anderson School of Management economist Clement Bohr issued a stark warning to Trump earlier this month: “If all your wishes come true, you could very well be the author of a deep recession.”

The financial markets are particularly concerned about the potential inflationary effects of tariffs. Higher tariffs typically lead to higher prices for imported goods, which could drive overall inflation upward. Persistent inflation, in turn, might force the Federal Reserve to reconsider its plans for further interest rate cuts. If the Fed decides to keep rates high to combat inflation, borrowing costs would remain elevated, potentially hurting corporate profit margins and weakening consumer demand.

Trump’s trade policies have been a point of contention among economists and investors alike. While he has long argued that tariffs will protect American industries and create jobs, critics say that the economic consequences—including higher costs for businesses and consumers—outweigh any potential benefits. Goldman’s latest forecast suggests that these concerns are becoming more widely accepted on Wall Street.

The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s tariff policy has already taken a toll on the stock market. The S&P 500’s steep decline in March suggests that investors are increasingly worried about the economic outlook. Should Trump move forward with his plans for aggressive tariffs, market volatility could continue in the coming months.

Goldman Sachs is not alone in its pessimism. Other major financial institutions have also sounded alarms about the potential economic impact of Trump’s trade policies. Many analysts believe that if tariffs remain in place or are expanded further, the risks of a prolonged economic slowdown will increase.

While the White House has maintained that tariffs will ultimately benefit the economy by reducing reliance on foreign goods, the short-term consequences appear to be negative. Businesses that rely on imported materials are already facing higher costs, and many have signaled that they will pass these costs on to consumers. This could exacerbate inflationary pressures at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to bring inflation under control.

The bond market has also reacted to these developments, with yields on long-term U.S. Treasury bonds rising in response to inflation concerns. Higher bond yields can lead to tighter financial conditions, further slowing economic growth.

As uncertainty looms, investors will be closely watching Trump’s official announcement on Wednesday to see if his latest tariff proposals will be as severe as he has suggested. If the tariffs are implemented as planned, further market turbulence could follow.

For now, Goldman Sachs’ downgrade serves as a stark reminder of the risks facing the U.S. economy. The firm’s decision to cut its stock market targets and raise its recession probability reflects growing concerns that Trump’s trade policies could have unintended economic consequences. With inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth all expected to worsen, the outlook for the economy remains uncertain.

In the weeks ahead, economic data and corporate earnings reports will provide further insight into how businesses and consumers are responding to these policy changes. If inflation continues to rise and economic growth slows further, the Fed may have to reconsider its monetary policy stance, which could add another layer of complexity to an already volatile market environment.

Ultimately, the extent to which Trump’s tariffs impact the economy will depend on how businesses, consumers, and policymakers respond. If companies find ways to absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers, the inflationary impact could be limited. However, if prices rise significantly, the Fed may have no choice but to keep interest rates high, potentially leading to a broader economic slowdown.

In the meantime, investors should brace for continued uncertainty. Goldman Sachs’ revised forecast suggests that market conditions could remain challenging in the near term. While long-term economic fundamentals remain strong, the immediate risks posed by Trump’s trade policies cannot be ignored.

With the S&P 500 already experiencing its worst month since 2022, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the market can stabilize or if further declines are ahead. The outcome of Trump’s tariff policy will likely play a key role in shaping economic and market trends for the remainder of the year.

As always, market participants will be watching closely to see how the administration’s policies evolve and whether additional economic measures are introduced to counteract potential negative effects. For now, Goldman Sachs’ latest predictions underscore the uncertainty and risks facing the U.S. economy in 2025.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk announced on Thursday that he will step down from his position in the Donald Trump administration at the end of May after overseeing a $1 trillion reduction in the U.S. deficit. Musk, who was appointed as a “special government employee” for a 130-day term, has led cost-cutting initiatives as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk Calls It a ‘Revolution in Government’

In an interview with Fox News, Musk described his tenure as a historic transformation in federal spending.

“This is a revolution, possibly the biggest in government since the original revolution,” Musk said. “In the end, America will be in a much stronger position, with a fantastic future ahead.”

Musk, 53, who also heads Tesla and SpaceX and owns social media platform X, has received both praise and criticism for his aggressive cost-cutting strategies. Under DOGE, an agency composed of engineers and entrepreneurs, tens of thousands of federal employees have been laid off, and funding for multiple programs has been slashed.

Musk Confirms 130-Day Term Limit

When asked if he would extend his tenure, Musk stated that he believes his objectives will be largely completed by then.

“I think we will have accomplished the majority of what’s needed to cut the deficit by $1 trillion within that timeframe,” he said.

According to DOGE’s website, as of March 27, the agency has saved American taxpayers approximately $130 billion, equating to about $807 per person.

Eliminating Waste and Fraud: A 15% Cut is ‘Achievable’

Musk and his seven-member DOGE team—including Steve Davis, Joe Gebbia, Aram Moghaddassi, Brad Smith, Anthony Armstrong, Tom Krause, and Tyler Hassen—have focused on reducing government inefficiencies.

“Our goal is to cut spending by eliminating waste and fraud, aiming for a 15% reduction, which seems entirely realistic,” Musk told Fox News’ Bret Baier.

“The government operates inefficiently, with significant waste and fraud. We are confident that a 15% cut can be achieved without impacting critical services.”

Federal Credit Card Oversight: ‘This Doesn’t Make Sense’

A key area of DOGE’s focus has been federal credit card usage. DOGE member Steve Davis pointed out that there are around 4.6 million government-issued credit cards for an estimated 2.3 to 2.4 million employees.

“This doesn’t add up,” Davis said. “We’ve asked agencies whether they actually need all these cards, if they are being used, and if they can physically account for them.”

Musk called the situation absurd.

“There shouldn’t be more government credit cards than there are employees,” he said.

Criticism Over Lack of Oversight

Despite the administration’s claims of efficiency, critics argue that DOGE wields too much authority with insufficient oversight. Opponents allege that Musk’s team has unilaterally canceled federal contracts and implemented budget cuts without congressional approval.

Musk dismissed these concerns, insisting that his team takes a meticulous approach to decision-making.

“Some may say we’re making impulsive cuts, but that’s far from the truth,” Musk said. “We double-check, even triple-check, before making a decision.”

He also acknowledged that mistakes can happen.

“That’s not to say we don’t make errors. Expecting a flawless approach is like demanding a baseball player to bat a thousand—it’s impossible. When we make mistakes, we correct them quickly and move forward.”

President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of federal judges who have blocked his administration’s policies, portraying them as threats to the nation and urging the Supreme Court to intervene.

In a Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump lashed out at judges who issued nationwide injunctions against his executive actions, calling them “radical left judges” and “lunatics” attempting to “assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes.” (Trump won the 2024 election with 77 million votes, and federal judges are appointed, not elected.)

“STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” Trump wrote, directly appealing to Chief Justice John Roberts. “If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!”

The following morning, Trump reiterated his claims on Truth Social, again accusing federal judges of trying to take over presidential duties.

Trump’s administration has faced more than 100 lawsuits challenging his policies, with the former president arguing that nationwide injunctions have been unfairly used to block his agenda. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused these judges of acting as “partisan activists” in remarks to reporters on Wednesday.

“They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States,” Leavitt said. “They are trying to clearly slow-walk this administration’s agenda, and it’s unacceptable.”

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have encountered nationwide injunctions, but Trump and his supporters claim that he has faced an unprecedented number. According to the Harvard Law Review, Trump’s first term saw 64 nationwide injunctions—far more than any president since 2001.

However, Trump has exercised executive power in ways that previous presidents have not, and in his second term, he has aggressively pushed to expand the scope of his authority. As political analyst Steve Benen noted, Trump and his allies are framing judicial opposition as part of a broad conspiracy rather than acknowledging that his actions may be legally questionable.

Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have also called for judges who rule against the administration to be impeached. This prompted a rare public response from Chief Justice Roberts, who stated, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

The Justice Department is currently awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on its request to narrow the reach of several judicial orders blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. However, as The Associated Press noted, the court does not appear to be rushing its decision.

President Donald Trump is facing significant disapproval across multiple issues, with a Fox News host stating Thursday that he is “underwater on everything” when it comes to his approval ratings.

Jessica Tarlov cited a new Quinnipiac poll released this week, which found that 53% of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance during his second term. Voters were surveyed on various topics, including trade policies with China and Canada, immigration, foreign relations, military affairs, the economy, and the federal workforce.

Since the start of his second term, the stock market has been experiencing a downturn, thousands of federal workers have lost their jobs, and Trump has created tension with some of the country’s strongest trade partners.

“The Democratic messaging actually has been going pretty well,” Tarlov said on Fox News’ The Five, despite a separate poll indicating that Democrats have struggled to respond effectively to Trump’s policies. She noted that Democrats have been emphasizing, “They’re trying to cut your healthcare while giving tax breaks to the rich.”

“There’s over 50% disapproval of Trump himself, how he’s handling the economy, how he’s handling the federal workforce, how he’s handling Ukraine-Russia, how he’s handling trade with Mexico, how he’s handling trade with Canada,” Tarlov added. “So basically, he’s underwater on everything.”

Trump’s approval ratings had already been struggling before his joint session of Congress address on March 4. Another Quinnipiac poll from last month showed that 45% of voters approved of his performance, while 49% disapproved.

A CNN poll released this week reported similar findings, with 54% of voters disapproving of Trump’s performance compared to 45% who approved. Additionally, a Reuters poll found that many voters viewed Trump’s economic policies as too “erratic.”

Tarlov attributed part of Trump’s declining approval ratings to recent town halls held by both Democratic and Republican congressional members. These events have drawn large crowds seeking clarification on the Trump administration’s policies, particularly regarding federal workforce reductions.

On the Republican side, social media footage has captured GOP lawmakers facing backlash for supporting the Department of Government Efficiency, which is overseeing these workforce cuts.

“And we know about the Republicans having town halls and then having to run away or asking questions like, ‘What do you think of DOGE?’ and expecting people to say something positive and then they are screaming,” Tarlov said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested, without evidence, that some of the outraged town hall attendees are “paid actors.”

This week, North Carolina Republican Representative Chuck Edwards faced an intense confrontation with constituents demanding explanations for his support of cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He was met with boos and was eventually escorted out of the meeting.

President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday began declassifying all government files related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, making potentially tens of thousands of unredacted pages available to the public for the first time.

This release follows Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office in January, directing the full disclosure of government documents concerning the assassinations of Kennedy, his brother and presidential candidate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, D-N.Y., and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

The specific contents of these newly available documents, and whether they contain any previously undisclosed information, remain unclear. Historians noted they would need time to analyze the files to determine whether they offer any significant new insights.

Thus far, the documents have not altered the longstanding conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, as the president rode in a Dallas motorcade.

Public Access to the JFK Files

The newly released JFK files can be accessed on the National Archives’ website. Most are scanned documents, some of which have faded or become difficult to read over time. The collection also includes photographs and sound recordings, predominantly from the 1960s.

Report from Russia: Oswald’s Poor Marksmanship

One document dated Nov. 20, 1991, appears to summarize U.S. intelligence findings on Lee Harvey Oswald, detailing his time in the Soviet Union, his tumultuous marriage to his Soviet wife, and his reportedly poor shooting skills.

According to the document, KGB official Nikonov reviewed Soviet security service files to determine if Oswald had ever been a KGB agent.

“Nikonov is now confident that Oswald was at no time an agent controlled by the KGB,” the document states.

The report, citing American professor E.B. Smith, describes how Nikonov examined five extensive files on Oswald and doubted that anyone could control him. However, the KGB reportedly monitored him closely while he was in the USSR.

The files also document Oswald’s troubled relationship with his wife and suggest that his marksmanship was subpar. “The KGB files reflected that Oswald was a poor shot when he tried target firing in the USSR,” the document notes.

Some conspiracy theorists have pointed to inconsistencies in Oswald’s behavioral records in CIA files, arguing that they support theories suggesting he did not act alone or was not involved in Kennedy’s assassination.

References to Conspiracy Theories in the Files

The newly disclosed documents reference conspiracy theories suggesting that Oswald left the Soviet Union in 1962 with the intent to assassinate Kennedy.

Documents from the Department of Defense, dated 1963, focus on Cold War tensions and U.S. efforts to counter Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s support for communist movements in Latin America.

The records suggest Castro was unlikely to instigate a war with the U.S. but might “intensify his support of subversive forces in Latin America.”

Experts’ Initial Reactions

James Johnston, author of Murder, Inc.: The CIA under John F. Kennedy, told USA Today that he did not expect any major revelations, given that the CIA and other agencies had already transferred their records to the National Archives in 1988.

“If it was going to embarrass the agency or tell a different story, they wouldn’t have turned them over to the National Archives in the first place,” said Johnston, who was a congressional investigator on the 1975 Church Committee, which examined CIA activities.

Johnston cited one notable document missing from the release: a transcript of the first conversation between President Lyndon Johnson and CIA Director John McCone after Kennedy’s assassination.

McCone had long been suspected of withholding information from the Warren Commission, the investigative panel established by Johnson. According to Philip Shenon, author of A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination, McCone initially pledged full cooperation but later withheld certain details.

McCone testified that the CIA had no evidence linking Oswald to any conspiracy, foreign or domestic. His testimony aligned with the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald, a former Marine and self-proclaimed Marxist, acted alone.

Years later, however, the CIA acknowledged that McCone had not been entirely forthcoming with the Warren Commission.

The Warren Commission’s Findings

Several of the newly released documents pertain to the Warren Commission, which was created by President Johnson to investigate Kennedy’s assassination.

The commission concluded that Oswald, who was arrested but later killed by nightclub owner Jack Ruby on live television, acted alone. However, Kennedy’s assassination has remained the subject of intense debate, with numerous theories challenging the official findings. Polls have consistently shown that many Americans believe the assassination was part of a broader conspiracy.

Trump’s Push for ‘Maximum Transparency’

Trump did not immediately comment on the document release, but Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard praised the move, calling it part of Trump’s pledge for “maximum transparency and a commitment to rebuild the trust of the American people in the Intelligence Community.”

For years, critics have accused the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, of withholding key information about Kennedy’s assassination. However, intelligence officials have insisted that all essential files have already been released and that any remaining redactions were necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Gabbard stated that she issued a directive following Trump’s announcement, instructing all intelligence agencies to provide unredacted records for immediate public release.

Digital Release and Remaining Files

The newly released documents were made public just before 7 p.m. Tuesday. The National Archives and Records Administration, which manages the files, issued a statement confirming that all records previously withheld for classification were now released in accordance with Trump’s directive.

The National Archives noted that while some files are available online, others can only be accessed in person at the National Archives facility in College Park, Maryland.

“As the records continue to be digitized, they will be posted to this page,” the statement read, indicating that some documents are not yet available in digital form.

The agency also noted that certain information remains restricted under court seals or grand jury secrecy laws, while tax return records are protected under federal regulations.

Public Anticipation and Reaction

The document release followed Trump’s visit to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where he now serves as board chairman.

“People have been waiting for decades for this,” Trump told reporters. “We have a tremendous amount of paper. You’ve got a lot of reading. I don’t believe we’re going to redact anything.”

The CIA and FBI, both of which played roles in JFK assassination investigations, declined immediate comment.

Expert Analysis on the Newly Released Files

JFK scholar Jefferson Morley called the release “an encouraging start.”

“We now have complete versions of approximately a third of the redacted JFK documents held by the National Archives,” said Morley, vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for historical government transparency.

He added that seven out of ten JFK files sought by researchers are now fully public, providing new insights into Kennedy’s distrust of the CIA, attempts to assassinate Castro, surveillance of Oswald in Mexico City, and CIA propaganda efforts involving Oswald.

However, Morley noted that two-thirds of the promised files remain unreleased, including over 500 IRS records and 2,400 recently discovered FBI documents.

“Nonetheless, this is the most positive news on the declassification of JFK files since the 1990s,” Morley said.

The Justice Department’s Effort to Meet Trump’s Deadline

Trump’s order reportedly triggered a rush within the Justice Department to meet his deadline. ABC News and Reuters reported that a senior official in the DOJ’s Office of Intelligence sent an internal email just before 5 p.m. Monday, instructing attorneys to conduct a final review of the documents.

The push for full declassification began with Trump’s first executive order on Jan. 20, when he directed agencies to release files related to the assassinations of Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.

FBI Unveils Additional 2,400 JFK Records

Last month, the FBI announced the discovery of approximately 2,400 additional records connected to Kennedy’s assassination. These files are in the process of being transferred to the National Archives, but their contents remain unclear.

While previous investigations found no evidence of a government conspiracy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has advocated for releasing the files to examine whether U.S. officials were involved in a cover-up.

The National Archives continues to review and release documents in compliance with Trump’s directive.

A global watchdog organization has placed the United States on a list of countries experiencing “faltering civic freedoms” following concerns over President Donald Trump’s recent actions and policies.

CIVICUS, a nonprofit that advocates for democracy and human rights, included the U.S. in its first watchlist of the year on Monday. The organization noted that America, previously regarded as “a global champion for democracy and human rights,” has drawn scrutiny due to Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal government to align with his vision while distancing the U.S. from global affairs.

The United States is now listed among 37 other nations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Chile, and Slovakia, under the category of countries with “narrowed” civic freedoms.

“This is an unparalleled attack on the rule of law in the United States, not seen since the days of McCarthyism in the twentieth century,” said Mandeep Tiwana, the interim co-secretary-general of CIVICUS, in a statement.

Tiwana further elaborated, saying, “Restrictive executive orders, unjustifiable institutional cutbacks, and intimidation tactics through threatening pronouncements by senior officials in the administration are creating an atmosphere to chill democratic dissent, a cherished American ideal.”

The “narrowed” designation by CIVICUS signifies that while people in these countries can still exercise civil liberties, violations of these rights occur periodically. This is the second-highest rating level, following the “open” category.

One of the primary concerns cited by the organization is Trump’s decision to dismiss large numbers of federal employees and replace them with individuals who demonstrate unwavering loyalty to him, a move that CIVICUS warns could “severely impact constitutional freedoms.”

Trump has deliberately chosen appointees based on their personal allegiance to him rather than their qualifications or expertise.

Among those involved in restructuring the government is billionaire Elon Musk, who, despite lacking an official title, has served as a “special government employee.” Musk has played a role in identifying areas within the federal workforce for reduction, seeking to eliminate what the administration views as inefficient or wasteful expenditures.

This initiative has led to significant changes within key government agencies. The U.S. Agency for International Development has been stripped of much of its authority to provide humanitarian aid and assistance, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has seen a reduction in its ability to regulate and enforce protections against fraud and unfair business practices.

Additionally, Trump has employed executive orders to consolidate power within the executive branch, thereby increasing his administration’s ability to oversee and control federal agencies, ensuring they align with his policy priorities.

These measures have included halting all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, suppressing pro-Palestinian student demonstrations, and promoting policies that reflect his administration’s ideological stance.

“The Trump administration seems hellbent on dismantling the system of checks and balances, which are the pillars of a democratic society,” Tiwana warned in the CIVICUS statement.

Monday’s designation is not the first time the U.S. has been downgraded on the watchdog’s list. In 2020, CIVICUS lowered the country’s status to “obstructed” after determining that the Trump administration had repressed mass protests.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, asserting that the U.S. was under invasion by a Venezuelan gang. The law, originally designed for wartime, grants the president significant authority, enabling him to accelerate mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. This move signals a potential intensification of Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Trump’s order specifically targets the Tren de Aragua gang, which he claims is operating as a hostile force under the Venezuelan government’s direction. “Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA,” Trump stated, as reported by the Associated Press. He further argued, “The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

The declaration came on the same day that a federal judge in Washington blocked the administration from deporting five Venezuelans under the anticipated order, indicating potential legal resistance. Even before Trump’s official announcement, a federal judge had intervened to prevent these deportations using the Alien Enemies Act, signaling an immediate legal battle.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, quickly filed an urgent lawsuit in Washington’s federal court. They argued that Trump’s order classified Tren de Aragua as a “predatory incursion” orchestrated by a foreign government, a move that could lead to indiscriminate deportations of Venezuelans.

DC Circuit Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, valid for 14 days, to shield five Venezuelans in immigration custody who were at risk of imminent deportation under the act. Boasberg’s ruling sought to preserve the current situation while scheduling a hearing to determine whether broader protections should be extended to all Venezuelans in the U.S.

The Trump administration swiftly challenged the restraining order, arguing that blocking presidential action before its execution would significantly hinder executive operations. The Justice Department warned that allowing such judicial interventions could enable district courts to obstruct crucial national security measures, including intelligence operations, drone strikes, or counterterrorism efforts. The administration urged the court to prevent such a precedent from taking hold.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, is a law designed for use during wartime or when the U.S. faces an imminent invasion threat from a foreign nation. It grants the president the authority to detain or deport foreign nationals from enemy countries during conflicts, with a particular focus on recent immigrants who might be perceived as aligning with U.S. adversaries.

When Was the Alien Enemies Act Last Used?

According to CNN, legal experts believe invoking the act outside of wartime—especially in response to threats from criminal gangs or cartels—would present legal challenges unless the U.S. were under direct attack by a foreign government.

The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked three times in U.S. history, each instance occurring during wartime. As noted by the Brennan Center, it was used during World War I and World War II to detain and deport individuals from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy, and Japan. Additionally, the act played a central role in the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a highly controversial episode in U.S. history.

Presidential Powers Under the Alien Enemies Act

The act grants the president broad authority, including:

• Detention and Deportation: The president can detain or deport any male over the age of 14 from an enemy nation if they are deemed a potential threat.
• National Security Measures: The act provides a legal framework for mitigating risks posed by foreign nationals from hostile nations to protect U.S. interests.
• Restrictions on Movement and Property: The president can impose travel restrictions or require individuals to report regularly to authorities.
• Expedited Mass Deportations: The act allows the president to bypass certain immigration and criminal law protections, facilitating rapid deportations of individuals designated as threats.

Key Implications of Trump’s Order

1. Legal Challenges and Constitutional Concerns

Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, have already initiated lawsuits, arguing that Trump’s order violates due process and immigrants’ legal rights. A federal judge’s temporary block on some deportations suggests a prolonged legal battle is ahead.

2. Targeting of Venezuelan Migrants

Trump has justified his order by focusing on the Tren de Aragua gang, alleging that it has connections to Venezuela’s government. However, this designation could impact thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the U.S., many of whom fled economic hardship and political repression.

3. Potential Diplomatic Fallout

Trump’s move may strain U.S.-Venezuela relations, particularly if deported individuals face persecution under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime. Maduro’s government has long been at odds with the U.S., and mass deportations could heighten tensions.

4. Uncertainty for Undocumented Immigrants

The order has created widespread fear and uncertainty among undocumented Venezuelan migrants, who now face the possibility of detention or deportation without standard legal protections.

5. Use of Detention Centers and International Transfers

The Trump administration has announced plans to relocate approximately 300 suspected gang members to detention facilities in El Salvador. This decision has drawn criticism from human rights groups concerned about the treatment of detainees in these facilities.

6. Broader Immigration Crackdown

Trump’s move signals his commitment to aggressively pursuing stricter immigration policies, potentially laying the groundwork for more expansive crackdowns if he secures a second term. The use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context raises concerns about its future application beyond Venezuelan migrants.

A Test for Executive Power

Trump’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act marks a significant escalation in his immigration policy. While his administration argues that this move is necessary for national security, legal experts caution that using a wartime law to target migrant groups could face substantial constitutional hurdles.

The federal court’s intervention suggests that judicial challenges will continue to shape the fate of Trump’s order. The restraining order issued by Judge Boasberg may be just the first of many legal barriers Trump faces in implementing this measure.

The Road Ahead

With ongoing court battles, diplomatic considerations, and human rights concerns, Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act remains a contentious issue. While supporters see it as a necessary tool to combat transnational crime, opponents view it as an overreach that could set a dangerous precedent for future immigration policies.

The coming weeks will be crucial as the administration seeks to defend its actions in court, while advocacy groups continue their efforts to challenge what they see as an unlawful and unconstitutional policy. The ultimate outcome of this legal battle could have lasting implications for immigration enforcement and executive authority in the U.S.

The administration of President Donald Trump filed a series of emergency appeals with the Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking approval to proceed with plans to end birthright citizenship. This move elevates a controversial legal theory that multiple lower courts have strongly rejected.

In its emergency appeals, the Trump administration argued that lower courts had overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. It urged the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these orders.

A federal judge in January ruled that Trump’s executive order was “blatantly unconstitutional” and halted its implementation. Shortly afterward, a Maryland judge stated that the order “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.” Despite appeals, courts have consistently declined to pause the lower court rulings, which imposed nationwide injunctions on Trump’s order issued on the first day of his second term.

For over 150 years, courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to ensure citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of their parents’ immigration status. A landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision affirmed this interpretation, and the current Court has not indicated any intention to reconsider that precedent.

However, some conservative legal scholars argue that this long-standing interpretation is incorrect. They point to a phrase in the 14th Amendment that states citizenship applies only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. According to this perspective, immigrants who are in the country illegally remain under the jurisdiction of their home nations and should not be granted U.S. citizenship at birth.

Federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have all issued injunctions preventing the policy’s implementation. These rulings came in response to lawsuits filed by over 20 states, two immigrant rights organizations, and seven individual plaintiffs.

Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in one of the lawsuits challenging the administration, criticized the executive order, saying, “The president’s executive order is outrageously illegal and cruel, and it should not be applied to a single baby in this country.” He added, “We are going to continue fighting to ensure that no child is denied their citizenship by this executive order.”

The Trump administration’s Supreme Court appeals do not directly address whether the executive order is constitutional. Instead, they make what the administration calls a “modest” request to narrow the scope of the injunctions. If granted, this request would allow the government to enforce the policy against individuals not currently covered by ongoing litigation.

The Justice Department, in its emergency appeals, expressed frustration with the increasing use of nationwide injunctions, arguing, “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration.” It continued, “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”

As an alternative measure, the administration requested permission to issue guidance on how it would implement the policy, even if the Court did not fully lift the injunctions.

While the focus of the administration’s legal challenge is on lower court rulings that blocked the executive order, the Justice Department used its Supreme Court appeal to outline broader arguments against birthright citizenship.

“During the 20th century,” the administration argued, “the executive branch adopted the incorrect position that the citizenship clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States – even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.” It further claimed, “That policy of near-universal birthright citizenship has created strong incentives for illegal immigration.”

With the Supreme Court now reviewing the case, it is expected to establish a briefing schedule that will require the parties challenging the executive order to submit their responses quickly, possibly within just a few days.

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday aimed at dissolving seven federal agencies, including those overseeing media, libraries, museums, and homelessness initiatives.

The directive instructs these government entities to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” asserting that they should “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel.” Agency heads are required to submit a compliance report to the Office of Management and Budget within seven days.

Among the agencies targeted is the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America (VOA). The order also seeks to dismantle the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank within the Smithsonian Institution, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which provides support to libraries, archives, and museums nationwide.

Additionally, the executive action eliminates the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, which works to prevent and address homelessness across the country. Other agencies affected include the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which helps resolve labor disputes and work stoppages, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which promotes economic opportunities in underserved communities, and the Minority Business Development Agency, which supports the growth of minority-owned businesses.

Trump’s decision has raised concerns about the future of VOA, particularly following his selection of former Arizona gubernatorial and Senate candidate Kari Lake to lead the outlet. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, Lake assured that under her leadership, the international broadcaster would not become “Trump TV.”

While the president does not directly appoint VOA’s leader, Trump has nominated conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media. If confirmed by the Senate, Bozell would have the authority to appoint Lake to the position.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media also supervises Radio Free Asia, which broadcasts and publishes content for audiences in Asia, serving as a countermeasure against Chinese state propaganda.

The Trump administration has been pursuing a broad restructuring of the federal government, with tech billionaire Elon Musk leading efforts to cut spending and reduce the workforce. However, these efforts have faced legal challenges. On Thursday, federal judges in Maryland and Northern California issued rulings blocking mass dismissals of government employees.

In response, the White House announced on Friday that it would appeal the court decisions, which have required the administration to reinstate probationary federal workers.

A federal judge ruled Thursday night that thousands of federal employees dismissed under the Trump administration must be temporarily reinstated.

U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order against multiple federal agencies, departments, and their leadership, which had terminated workers as part of a workforce reduction initiative.

“In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice. It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons,” Bredar stated in his ruling.

“On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively,” he added.

Earlier that day, a separate federal judge in California directed several federal departments, including Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Treasury, to reinstate thousands of probationary employees who had been terminated the previous month. The Justice Department responded by filing a notice of appeal in that case.

Bredar’s order specifically applies to 12 federal departments that dismissed probationary workers. These include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Additionally, the ruling covers recently terminated probationary workers at several federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration.

Bredar set a deadline of March 17 at 1 p.m. ET for these agencies to reinstate the affected employees.

The judge acknowledged the scale of his ruling, considering the government had dismissed approximately 200,000 probationary employees—workers who were either newly hired or had recently changed positions—since Donald Trump assumed office in January.

“The Court is not blind to the practical reality that the relief being ordered today will have far-reaching impacts on the federal workforce and will require the Government to expend considerable resources in an effort to undo the [reductions in force] that have been put into place,” Bredar noted.

“When, as is likely the case here, the Government has engaged in an illegal scheme spanning broad swaths of the federal workforce, it is inevitable that the remediation of that scheme will itself be a significant task,” he continued.

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general had initiated the lawsuit, seeking a temporary restraining order that would reinstate the terminated employees. They argued that the Trump administration had disregarded established protocols in executing mass terminations of federal workers.

However, Bredar ruled that certain federal entities, including the Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management, and the National Archives, would not be subject to his order. He cited “insufficient evidence” that a workforce reduction had taken place at these agencies.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed support for the ruling in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“We’re pleased with the court’s decision to restrain the Trump Admin’s reckless directive and we’ll continue to monitor and ensure compliance,” he wrote.

The White House has yet to provide a response to the ruling.

If the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) were fully privatized, it would likely result in more frequent rate increases, reduced service days, and a restructured network resembling that of FedEx and UPS, according to industry experts.

Former President Donald Trump has proposed the idea of privatizing the nearly 250-year-old institution as part of efforts to address its financial losses. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and an influential figure in the Trump administration, also supported the idea during a recent Morgan Stanley conference, according to reports.

However, the prospect of privatization has drawn opposition from postal employees and lawmakers, who argue that it could jeopardize service in rural areas, raise costs, and threaten jobs within the agency. In a video message to USPS employees on February 25, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy acknowledged that any structural changes would ultimately be determined by Congress and the president.

“To the degree possible postal leadership will be involved, so that we ensure the nation’s leaders are aware of how future proposed changes may impact our organization’s ability to serve the American people,” DeJoy stated.

The State of USPS

USPS is already working toward financial stability through DeJoy’s 10-year “Delivering for America” plan, which involves various network adjustments aimed at reducing costs while increasing revenue from package deliveries. Despite these efforts, the agency continues to struggle.

In fiscal year 2024, USPS reported a loss of $9.5 billion, with 80% of the deficit attributed to factors beyond management’s control, such as unfunded pension liabilities. To address these challenges, DeJoy has advocated for administrative and legislative reforms, including changes to pension funding.

The Trump administration and lawmakers are now evaluating whether privatization—turning USPS into a profit-driven enterprise without regulatory constraints—would be beneficial for the country.

Despite its financial struggles, USPS remains a key component of the nation’s infrastructure. A 2018 report by a task force established during Trump’s first term emphasized that its delivery network “is a critical part of the nation’s infrastructure that cannot be replicated by private actors.”

Aaron Alpeter, founder of supply chain consultancy Izba, pointed out that defining USPS’s role is essential before making any structural changes.

“We have to really understand, what is the Post Office?” Alpeter said. “Is it meant to compete with commercial interests that are out there, or is meant to provide a safety net for things that commercial interests are not interested in?”

Currently, USPS faces operational constraints in its cost-cutting efforts. DeJoy noted last June that over half of its carrier routes operate at a loss. However, due to its universal service obligation, the agency cannot simply eliminate these routes, as it is legally required to deliver mail promptly and reliably across the country.

This obligation includes servicing costly-to-reach areas such as Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. Anthony Pizza, Vice President of Growth and Innovation at SpeedX, a parcel carrier that also operates in Hawaii, highlighted the inherent cost challenges in reaching such locations.

“There’s a certain floor for the cost to move things there,” Pizza explained.

Unlike private courier companies, USPS does not receive tax funding to cover the added expenses associated with delivering to remote areas. Any changes to its universal service obligation would require oversight by Congress and the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Even if privatized, USPS could still be required to maintain certain service standards. For instance, the privatized Royal Mail in the United Kingdom is mandated to deliver and collect letters six days a week at affordable rates.

“If we’re going to keep the service standards as they are today, you have to be very realistic to think about what privatization can actually accomplish,” said Derek Lossing, founder of Cirrus Global Advisors and a former Amazon Logistics leader. “Again, if you look at the Royal Mail, I don’t think it’s accomplished nearly what they thought it could.”

Potential Changes Under Privatization

Experts predict that a privatized USPS would likely scale back its six-day-a-week delivery service in less profitable rural areas to cut costs. This would align with the agency’s existing cost-reduction efforts in remote regions.

Another major shift could involve significantly reducing USPS’s physical footprint of over 33,000 post offices. Lossing suggested that, like UPS, the agency could shift to using local businesses as pickup and drop-off locations instead of maintaining standalone post offices.

“Your footprint would look more like a UPS or FedEx,” Lossing noted.

Expected Rate Hikes

Privatization would also likely lead to more aggressive rate increases. Analysts at Wells Fargo estimated that USPS would need to raise parcel delivery prices by at least 30% to achieve financial independence. Their February 27 research report indicated that USPS’s pricing was 25% to 60% lower than FedEx and UPS in the fourth quarter of 2024, depending on the service.

“I don’t know how they would be able to sustain delivery with the current price structure,” said Helaine Rich, Vice President of Strategic Sales and Administration at ePost Global.

While raising prices and cutting service days might help USPS improve its financial outlook, experts warned that such measures carry significant risks, especially in package delivery. If USPS reduces delivery days in certain areas, businesses and consumers may increasingly turn to alternative carriers.

On the other hand, USPS’s ability to reliably deliver to rural communities remains a competitive advantage, particularly for e-commerce companies seeking nationwide coverage, according to Lossing.

The Wells Fargo report also pointed out that substantial rate hikes by a privatized USPS could benefit competitors like FedEx and UPS by “increasing the floor for” delivery rates. Additionally, higher postage costs could accelerate declines in mail volume as businesses and individuals seek digital alternatives.

The Road Ahead

Instead of fully privatizing USPS, the U.S. government could opt for a partial approach by keeping the mail business under federal control while privatizing the package delivery segment, which competes with private companies. Several experts believe such a model could limit disruptions to mail service while allowing for competitive efficiencies in package shipping.

“I don’t see it happening, obviously, on the letter mail side of things,” Rich said regarding privatization.

No matter the approach, transitioning to a privatized model would be a lengthy process. Mark Waverek, Managing Partner at PlaidMark Management and Consulting Services, compared it to the multi-year restructuring efforts seen in countries like Germany.

“You just can’t snap your fingers and turn it on tomorrow,” Waverek said. “This is going to take a well-thought-out process of what those cuts are going to be, what it’s going to mean to the people on the service side [and] what alternatives are going to be in place. It’s going to take time.”

Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown Friday, mere hours before the deadline, as the Senate approved a spending bill that had already cleared the House. However, the passage of this stopgap measure revealed deep fractures within the Democratic Party.

The legislation, designed to keep the government funded into the fall, now awaits the signature of President Donald Trump, who is expected to approve it.

Senate Democrats faced mounting pressure to reject the Trump-backed bill, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats who facilitated its passage, is now facing backlash from within his party.

The internal discord became increasingly apparent as lawmakers raced against the clock to prevent a shutdown that could have had significant consequences across federal agencies. The episode underscored the Democrats’ ongoing struggle to counter Trump and the Republican dominance in Washington.

Roughly 90 minutes before Senate Republicans averted the shutdown in a near party-line vote, Schumer and nine other Democrats crossed the aisle to advance the bill in a critical procedural vote. Despite mounting pressure from within their caucus to block it entirely, the bill required only a simple majority to pass, and nearly all Democrats who had initially supported the procedural step ultimately voted against it in the final tally.

Schumer defended his decision, arguing that the Democrats faced an impossible dilemma: either shut down the government for an indefinite period to challenge Trump or accept a Republican bill that they believed would slash spending on programs such as veterans’ health care and public services in Washington, DC.

“I believe it is the best way to minimize the harm that the Trump administration will do to the American people,” Schumer stated, explaining his reasoning for enabling the bill’s passage.

“Clearly, this is a Hobson’s choice. The CR is a bad bill, but as bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,” he continued.

Trump, in turn, praised Schumer for his stance, telling reporters after the vote, “I appreciate Senator Schumer, and I think he did the right thing, really. I’m very impressed by that.”

Despite Schumer’s efforts, discontent within the Democratic Party was palpable. Many Senate and House Democrats viewed the move as a concession, squandering a crucial opportunity to exert leverage against Trump in his second term.

Democrats across the country closely followed the procedural vote, seeing it as a key test of their party’s resolve in standing up to the president.

In the end, the Senate passed the stopgap bill in a 54-46 vote, securing government funding through September 30. Among Democrats, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with the party, supported the measure. The only Republican to vote against it was Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“Once I had voted for cloture, it was an opportunity to pass the bill, and I thought it was more honest to vote for it,” Shaheen told CNN. She added, “I thought, much as I didn’t like the CR, I thought a government shutdown would be worse and would give Trump and Elon Musk and the DOGE operation more of an opportunity to fire people, to shut down agencies and to close the work of the government.”

Following the passage of the stopgap measure, the Senate also approved a separate bill to allow Washington, DC, to maintain control over its funds. This move came after Democrats warned that the Republican funding plan would cut $1.1 billion from the city’s budget. The House must now approve this measure, but its fate remains uncertain.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other prominent Democrats had urged voters to pressure senators into blocking the bill and taking a stand against Trump’s attempts to dismantle federal agencies. Many within the party now believe Schumer failed this test.

The fallout from Schumer’s decision has reverberated throughout the Democratic Party, with critics emerging from various factions. However, no senators have publicly declared their intention to challenge his leadership.

Earlier in the week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries led an aggressive effort to whip votes against the bill. In the end, House Democrats lost only one member to the opposing side, but their efforts were insufficient to prevent the bill from passing in the House on Tuesday.

Jeffries declined to comment on whether he had lost confidence in Schumer due to their differing stances on the funding issue. When asked about it on Friday, he simply responded, “Next question.”

Democrats Reflect on Next Steps

In the aftermath of the vote, Senate Democrats are now grappling with how to move forward as a unified caucus, given the internal divisions exposed by the spending bill.

Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Friday evening that he had anticipated disagreements within his party but maintained that a government shutdown would have been the worse outcome.

“My job as leader is to lead the party and if there’s going to be danger in the near future, to protect the party. And I’m proud I did it, I knew I did the right thing, and I knew there would be some disagreements. That’s how it always is,” he said.

Schumer also defended his leadership position, asserting, “My caucus and I are in sync.”

Sen. Martin Heinrich, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, refrained from commenting on whether the party needed new leadership, telling reporters, “That’s a conversation for inside the caucus. I’m not going to debate that out here.”

“I think that Leader Schumer has been very effective in a lot of battles, but we also need to — these are new times, and we need to all come together. And so, you know, second guessing Leader Schumer out here isn’t going to accomplish the kind of community that we’re going to need to be able to stand up to the president. So, we’ll have that conversation inside caucus,” Heinrich added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed confidence in Schumer but acknowledged that the caucus had endured a turbulent week.

“I voted no on the CR. I heard that overwhelmingly from folks, and again, recognizing I got tons of federal workers. But I have total respect for the folks who reached another conclusion, and the idea that they would have had a shutdown that would have put us into the abyss with, unfortunately, parts of this administration, doesn’t follow the law,” Warner said.

He further emphasized the need for a broader vision for the party, stating, “I think the Democrats need to have a pro-growth agenda that recognizes fairness, and that is, frankly, not the debate though, that we just took place. That we just took place, it was two awful choices.”

As the Democratic Party regroups following this divisive episode, the long-term implications for party unity and strategy remain uncertain. With tensions still simmering, the coming months will test whether the party can reconcile internal disagreements while continuing to challenge the Republican-led government.

During his election campaign last year, Donald Trump assured Americans that he would bring in a new wave of economic prosperity. However, two months into his presidency, his messaging has shifted. He has now warned that lowering prices will be challenging and has advised the public to brace for a “little disturbance” before he can restore wealth to the U.S. economy.

Despite recent data indicating that inflation is cooling, analysts suggest that the likelihood of an economic downturn is rising, with many pointing to his policies as a contributing factor. This raises the question: Is Trump steering the world’s largest economy toward a recession?

Markets React as Recession Risks Escalate

In the U.S., a recession is defined as a prolonged and widespread decline in economic activity, often accompanied by rising unemployment and falling incomes. Recently, several economic analysts have sounded the alarm that the risks of such a scenario are mounting.

A report from JP Morgan has raised the probability of a recession to 40%, up from 30% at the beginning of the year, cautioning that U.S. policies are now “tilting away from growth.” Similarly, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, has increased his estimate of recession odds from 15% to 35%, citing the impact of tariffs.

These warnings have coincided with a significant decline in the S&P 500, which tracks 500 of the largest U.S. companies. The index has now dropped to its lowest point since September, signaling growing fears about the economic future.

Market instability has been partially fueled by concerns over new import taxes, known as tariffs, that Trump has imposed since taking office. His administration has targeted imports from America’s three largest trading partners with these tariffs and has threatened to expand them further. Analysts believe these actions will drive up prices and slow economic growth.

Meanwhile, official data from the U.S. Labor Department shows that inflation eased slightly in February, with prices rising 2.8% over the past year compared to 3% in January. Despite this, Trump and his economic advisors continue to caution the public to expect economic challenges. This marks a stark departure from his first term, when he frequently touted the stock market as a measure of his success.

“There will always be changes and adjustments,” Trump said last week in response to business leaders calling for more economic stability.

His stance has intensified investor concerns regarding his economic strategy. Goldman Sachs recently raised its own recession risk estimate from 15% to 20%, identifying policy changes as the primary threat to economic stability. However, the investment firm also noted that the White House could still “pull back if the downside risks begin to look more serious.”

“If the White House remained committed to its policies even in the face of much worse data, recession risk would rise further,” analysts at Goldman Sachs warned.

Impact of Tariffs, Uncertainty, and Economic Slowdown

For many businesses, the greatest uncertainty stems from Trump’s tariffs, which have increased costs for American companies by imposing taxes on imports. As the administration continues to roll out its tariff plans, many firms are seeing their profit margins shrink. In response, some companies are holding back on new investments and hiring as they try to navigate an unpredictable future.

Investors are also worried about deep cuts to the government workforce and federal spending reductions.

Brian Gardner, chief of Washington policy strategy at the investment bank Stifel, explained that businesses and investors initially assumed Trump was using tariffs as a bargaining tool.

“But what the president and his cabinet are signaling is actually a bigger deal. It’s a restructuring of the American economy,” he said. “And that’s what’s been driving markets in the last couple of weeks.”

Even before these developments, the U.S. economy was experiencing a slowdown, partly due to actions taken by the Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates elevated to cool economic activity and stabilize prices.

Recently, some economic data has pointed to a more pronounced weakening. Retail sales declined in February, and consumer and business confidence—which had surged following Trump’s election—has since fallen. Major corporations, including airlines, retailers like Walmart and Target, and manufacturers, have all issued warnings about reduced spending.

Some analysts fear that a continued decline in the stock market could lead to even tighter consumer spending, particularly among wealthier households. Since the U.S. economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending, and higher-income households play an increasingly significant role, such a shift could have major repercussions—especially as lower-income families continue to struggle with inflation.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell attempted to reassure the public in a speech last week, arguing that economic sentiment has not always been a reliable indicator of actual behavior.

“Despite elevated levels of uncertainty, the U.S. economy continues to be in a good place,” Powell stated.

However, the U.S. economy is deeply interconnected with global markets, a reality that adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, pointed out that these tariffs could create significant disruptions at a time when signs of economic weakness are already emerging.

“The fact that tariffs could disrupt that at the same time that there were signs that the U.S. economy was weakening anyway … is really fueling recession fears,” she said.

Tech Stock Market Correction and AI Bubble Concerns

Not all of the turmoil in the stock market can be attributed to Trump’s policies. Investors were already on edge about the possibility of a market correction, particularly after the substantial gains recorded over the last two years. Much of this growth has been fueled by enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and the tech sector.

For instance, chipmaker Nvidia saw its share price skyrocket from under $15 at the start of 2023 to nearly $150 by November of last year. Such dramatic increases have sparked debate over whether an “AI bubble” has formed. Many investors are now closely watching for signs that the bubble may burst, which could have significant consequences for the broader market—regardless of what’s happening in the wider economy.

As concerns about the U.S. economy intensify, sustaining the optimism surrounding AI has become even more challenging.

Tech analyst Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management expressed his growing doubts on social media this week, admitting that his confidence had “taken a step back” due to the rising likelihood of a recession.

“The bottom line is that if we enter a recession, it will be extremely difficult for the AI trade to continue,” he said.

With the combination of Trump’s economic policies, stock market volatility, and uncertainty in the tech sector, investors and analysts remain on high alert. Whether the administration chooses to adjust its approach in response to mounting risks could determine whether the U.S. economy avoids a full-blown recession or slides into one in the months ahead.

A new CNN poll conducted by SSRS reveals that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, despite his approval ratings on other key issues reaching some of their highest levels during his presidency.

With financial markets experiencing declines and investors expressing concerns over Trump’s trade policies, 56% of Americans disapprove of his economic management—the worst rating he has received on this issue during his presidency. In contrast, 51% of respondents approve of his immigration policies, particularly his stricter enforcement measures, marking a 7-point increase from previous approval levels during his tenure.

Public opinion is divided regarding Trump’s management of the federal budget and government operations, with 48% approving and about half disapproving in both areas. His approval ratings are even lower for health care policy (43%), foreign affairs (42%), and tariffs (39%).

Currently, Trump’s overall job approval stands at 45%, while 54% disapprove. These figures align with his ratings from March 2017 and match the highest approval ratings of his presidency. Meanwhile, 35% of Americans believe the country is on the right track—an increase from 29% in January, driven largely by a surge in optimism among Republicans. However, Trump’s approval remains highly polarized, with Republicans being roughly ten times more likely than Democrats to view his performance favorably.

A broad consensus exists across party lines that Trump has taken a unique approach to presidential power. An overwhelming 86% of Americans, including more than three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans, believe his exercise of presidential authority differs significantly from past presidents. Nearly half (49%) consider this a negative shift, while 37% see it as a positive change. Only 14% believe his governing style aligns with historical presidential norms.

Economic Concerns Dominate Voter Priorities

Economic issues remain the primary concern for Americans, with 42% ranking the economy as the top issue out of a list of seven. This is more than twice the percentage who identified any other issue as their biggest concern, including democracy (19%), the functioning of the federal government (14%), immigration (12%), health care (6%), foreign policy (3%), and climate change (2%).

Across party lines, the economy remains a key focus. Among Democrats, concerns about democracy slightly outweigh economic worries (36% versus 33%). However, among Republicans and independents, the economy is the dominant concern, with 45% in both groups selecting it as the top issue.

Trump’s perceived ability to deliver change and effectively manage the government has improved since his first term. Currently, 50% of Americans believe he can bring necessary change, and 49% think he can manage the government efficiently. Both figures have risen from 43% and 42%, respectively, in November 2019. Additionally, 51% believe Trump possesses the stamina and mental sharpness required for the job, though fewer consider him an effective world leader (46%) or believe he respects the rule of law (38%).

Concerns Over Musk’s Role and Government Downsizing

Trump’s return to office has been marked by efforts to cut federal spending and reduce the government workforce. However, the public’s reaction to these initiatives—and to the prominent role Trump has given tech billionaire Elon Musk—has been largely negative.

Only 35% of Americans hold a favorable view of Musk, compared to 53% who view him negatively, with 11% expressing no opinion. This makes Musk both more recognizable and more unpopular than Vice President JD Vance, whom 33% view positively and 44% unfavorably, with 23% undecided.

Skepticism about Musk’s role in government is widespread. About 60% of Americans believe he lacks the necessary experience and judgment to influence government operations. Even among Trump supporters who back government reform, 28% doubt Musk’s ability to carry out such changes effectively.

Public opinion is also split on Trump’s government reforms. A majority (55%) believe his administration’s changes are primarily intended to advance his political agenda, while 45% see them as necessary for improving government efficiency.

When asked about the potential impact of Trump’s federal budget cuts, 62% express concern that the reductions could go too far and result in the elimination of essential programs. Meanwhile, 37% worry that the cuts do not go far enough in eliminating fraud and waste. Partisan divisions are stark: 90% of Democrats and 69% of independents fear the loss of crucial government programs, while 73% of Republicans are more concerned about the persistence of government inefficiencies.

Lingering Doubts From Trump’s First Term

Many of the opinions surrounding Trump’s second presidency mirror those from his first term. Only 40% of Americans believe he genuinely cares about people like them, and just 34% think he can unite the country—figures that remain largely unchanged since 2019.

Strong disapproval of Trump’s presidency continues to surpass strong approval. In this latest survey, 41% of Americans say they strongly disapprove of Trump, compared to 26% who strongly approve.

A consistent trend throughout Trump’s political career has been the public’s skepticism about whether he has the right priorities. In the latest poll, 57% say he has not focused on the country’s most pressing issues. Furthermore, 59% of respondents consider Trump’s views and policies to be too extreme, up slightly from 54% of registered voters who held this view last September, just before his reelection.

Despite widespread criticism, some Americans express nuanced opinions about Trump’s policies and leadership. For instance, 12% approve of his handling of immigration but disapprove of his economic management. Similarly, 15% believe Trump fails to respect the rule of law but still think he can bring necessary change to the country.

Methodology and Survey Details

The CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, surveyed a random national sample of 1,206 U.S. adults from March 6-9. The participants were selected from a probability-based panel, with interviews conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The margin of error for the overall results is ±3.3 percentage points.

Just 20 days ago, the U.S. stock market was at record highs, the economy was expanding steadily, and a recession seemed far from reality. However, in a dramatic turnaround, concerns about an economic downturn are now widespread.

Worries about a potential recession are rattling the stock market, leading to downward revisions in GDP forecasts. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and his economic advisors are facing increased scrutiny regarding the possibility of a recession but have so far failed to calm growing unease.

On Tuesday, U.S. stocks declined again, unable to recover from Monday’s sharp losses. The Dow fell by approximately 400 points (about 1%), and the Nasdaq continued its slide after suffering its worst day in two and a half years.

Selling pressure intensified following Trump’s announcement of a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, with warnings that additional tariffs might follow.

The swift shift in investor sentiment is striking. Just a few months ago, there were concerns that the economy was performing too strongly, yet now, fears of a serious downturn have taken hold.

Despite the market’s turbulence, the U.S. economy does not appear to be on the verge of an imminent recession. Economic growth remained solid at the end of last year, and the first quarter has yet to conclude. Furthermore, the job market remained on an upward trajectory in January and February.

It is far too soon to declare that a recession—a prolonged economic slump marked by widespread job losses, bankruptcies, and foreclosures—is inevitable.

Previous recession alarms have, in hindsight, been overblown. The 2022 panic, for instance, included predictions that placed the likelihood of a recession at 99%.

However, economists now acknowledge that the risk of a recession has increased, even if it remains relatively low.

Uncertainty surrounding Trump’s economic policies—particularly his tariff strategies—is a significant factor fueling market instability.

“This is a very resilient economy. It can take a licking and keep on ticking. But it doesn’t like this uncertainty,” said David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management.

On Monday, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers expressed concern, telling CNN that a recession is a “real possibility.”

“We’ve got a real possibility of a vicious cycle where a weakening economy leads to weaker markets, and then weaker markets lead to a weakening economy,” Summers said during an interview.

Business Community Faces Uncertainty

Kelly described the economy and financial markets as suffering from an “uncertainty tax” stemming from questions about Trump’s tariffs, federal spending reductions, and widespread federal job cuts.

“Right now, a lot of businesspeople are like deer in headlights. That’sa very dangerous place to be,” he warned.

Bill Dudley, former president of the New York Federal Reserve, echoed these concerns in an interview with CNN on Monday. While he called it “premature” to predict a recession, he acknowledged that the risk has “definitely gone up.” Dudley attributed this to confusion surrounding trade policy.

“Tariffs have two effects: One, they push up prices. And two, they push down growth,” he explained. “The Trump administration is making things worse with this on-again, off-again approach. The uncertainty level is higher than it needs to be.”

Summers emphasized the importance of stability in financial markets, noting that they have instead experienced “surprise after surprise after surprise.”

“All of this emphasis on tariffs and all of the ambiguity and uncertainty created about tariffs has, ironically, both chilled demand, made businesses not invest, made consumers think they should hold off before making big spending commitments,” he said.

Market Declines Intensify

The market turmoil has continued to escalate.

Following its worst week in six months, the S&P 500 declined nearly 3% on Monday. The index has now fallen about 9% since reaching its all-time high on February 19.

“The stock market is losing confidence in the Trump 2.0 policies,” Ed Yardeni, president of investment advisory Yardeni Research, said in a phone interview with CNN. “Everything is at risk now, mostly because of the administration’s rush to establish so many objectives in a very short period of time — with unintended consequences.”

CNN’s Fear & Greed Index, which measures market sentiment, plunged further into “extreme fear” territory on Monday, a sharp shift from the “neutral” rating of just a few weeks prior.

Tech stocks have been particularly hard hit as investors flee from riskier assets in favor of defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and consumer staples.

On Monday, the Nasdaq tumbled 4%—its biggest one-day drop since September 2022. The losses were led by the “Magnificent 7,” a group of seven high-growth tech stocks that previously seemed unstoppable. Tesla saw its stock price plunge 13%, while Nvidia, Apple, and Alphabet each dropped by more than 5%.

Potential Real-World Economic Impact

It is important to note that stock market fluctuations do not always directly reflect economic conditions.

Unemployment remains low at 4.1%, and the U.S. economy continued adding jobs in February, marking the 50th consecutive month of employment growth—the second-longest uninterrupted job growth period in modern history.

However, there is a risk that ongoing market instability could spill over into the broader economy.

Consumer confidence, which has already been declining in recent months, may fall further as Americans become increasingly aware of the market turmoil. A decline in consumer sentiment could negatively impact spending, which serves as the primary driver of the U.S. economy.

Delta Air Lines revised its profit outlook downward on Monday, citing deteriorating corporate and consumer confidence as factors dampening travel demand.

Yardeni raised concerns about the “negative wealth effects” that could arise if market losses continue.

“Trump is going to have to rethink his notion that it’s okay to let the market go down while he is experimenting with tariffs and slashing federal payrolls,” he said.

Another troubling sign is the growing number of corporate bankruptcies.

According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, there were 129 U.S. corporate bankruptcies in the first two months of 2025—the highest figure for this period since 2010, when the country was still reeling from the Great Recession.

Goldman Sachs Raises Recession Odds

Concerns over heightened tariffs prompted Goldman Sachs to increase its recession probability estimate on Friday, though the revision was modest. The investment bank now projects a 20% chance of a recession within the next 12 months, up from its previous 15% estimate.

“We raised it by only a limited amount at this point because we see policy changes as the key risk, and the White House has the option to pull back if the downside risks begin to look more serious,” Goldman Sachs economists wrote in a note to clients.

Essentially, Goldman Sachs is betting that Trump will reverse course on tariffs if a recession becomes more likely.

However, if Trump refuses to change course, the risk of a downturn will increase.

“If the White House remained committed to its policies even in the face of much worse data,” the Goldman Sachs economists cautioned, “recession risk would rise further.”

Another major question is how the Federal Reserve will respond to these economic uncertainties.

Dudley, the former New York Fed president, pointed out that Trump’s tariff policies complicate the Fed’s decision-making by simultaneously pushing prices higher while slowing economic growth.

This could leave the Fed in a difficult position, making it reluctant to either raise or lower interest rates.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Fed is locked on hold for many, many months,” Dudley said. He added that while some Wall Street analysts expect a rate cut in May, he believes that timeline is “way too soon.”

The U.S. economy has demonstrated significant resilience in recent years.

It has weathered COVID-19 variants, supply chain disruptions, a 40-year high in inflation, and the Federal Reserve’s aggressive efforts to combat inflation.

However, it now faces a fresh challenge—one largely driven by policy uncertainty in Washington.

President Donald Trump remained off-camera today, an unusual move for him, as the U.S. stock market experienced a sharp decline. This drop followed Trump’s reluctance to rule out the possibility of a recession. When questioned about the market downturn, the White House attributed the president’s economic policies to increased investment and emphasized his first-term economic track record. However, the primary factor behind the market selloff was growing uncertainty over the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

As a deadline looms, a potential government shutdown is becoming a pressing concern. The president has urged Republican lawmakers to maintain unity and support a temporary funding measure before Friday’s cutoff to prevent a shutdown. Meanwhile, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has advised his party members to oppose the proposal. This opposition puts Republican Speaker Mike Johnson in a precarious position, as his slim majority in the House leaves little margin for error.

On the international stage, discussions about the Ukraine war are gaining momentum. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the U.S. wants to understand what compromises Ukraine might be willing to consider in negotiations with Russia. His remarks came just ahead of a crucial meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia, where these potential concessions will be discussed.

Judge Rules DOGE Likely Subject to FOIA Requests

A federal judge determined Monday that the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is likely subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law designed to promote transparency by allowing the public to access government records.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Casey Cooper, represents a significant victory for watchdog organizations and others seeking insight into DOGE’s operations. The department, which has been instrumental in President Trump’s efforts to revamp federal bureaucracy, is spearheaded by Elon Musk.

Despite the ruling, the immediate release of DOGE records remains uncertain. The government has the option to appeal Cooper’s decision, which could delay the disclosure of documents requested by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that filed the lawsuit.

In the meantime, Cooper has issued a preservation order requiring the administration to safeguard the records CREW has requested. Should DOGE fail to take proper measures to retain its documents, it could face legal consequences, including contempt charges.

The judge found that the Trump administration failed to counter the argument that DOGE possesses “substantial independent authority,” thereby making it subject to FOIA regulations. He pointed out that Trump’s executive orders related to DOGE appeared to “endow USDS with substantial authority independent of the President.” Additionally, public statements from both Trump and Musk suggested that DOGE was actively exercising significant decision-making power.

Rejecting claims that DOGE merely serves in an advisory capacity, Cooper noted Musk’s frequent social media posts boasting about the agency’s sweeping changes. “These statements and reports suggest that the President and USDS leadership view the department as wielding decision-making authority to make cuts across the federal government,” Cooper stated.

GOP Faces Internal Divide Over Stopgap Spending Bill

Two conservative Republican lawmakers informed CNN on Monday that they currently oppose a House GOP proposal to fund the government through September. Their opposition signals a potential hurdle for Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump, who must rally enough support within their own party to pass the bill and avert a shutdown.

With House Democrats expected to vote against the legislation, Johnson can only afford one Republican defection. However, GOP Representative Thomas Massie has already stated his opposition, making the margin for error even smaller. If Congress fails to approve funding legislation by the end of the week, the government will shut down after 11:59 p.m. ET on Friday.

Republican Representatives Tim Burchett and Rich McCormick expressed reservations about the bill, although they have not yet spoken with Trump directly. “Currently, but I’d like to talk some more,” Burchett remarked when asked about his stance. He emphasized his concern about military spending and called for greater oversight.

The Tennessee lawmaker acknowledged that he appreciates aspects of Johnson’s proposal, which includes $13 billion in domestic spending cuts and an additional $6 billion allocated for defense. However, he took issue with “the fact that they push it over to the war pimps at the Pentagon, once again.”

McCormick, representing Georgia, was more direct in his opposition. When asked if he would support the bill, he replied, “Nope.” He argued that extending current funding levels until the fiscal year’s end while postponing decisions on federal cuts gives excessive power to the executive branch, circumventing the constitutional appropriations process.

When pressed on whether he was firmly against the bill, McCormick remained noncommittal. “No, I refuse to paint myself into the corner,” he said.

Kennedy Moves to Close FDA Loophole on Food Safety

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced Monday that he has instructed the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take steps toward eliminating a controversial regulation known as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).

This rule, part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, allows certain food additives to bypass premarket approval requirements if experts have determined them to be safe for consumption. The FDA states that substances intentionally used as food additives must receive approval “unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use.”

Initially, the GRAS designation was intended for common ingredients such as sugar, vinegar, and baking soda. However, in the late 1990s, the FDA found itself overwhelmed by an increasing number of requests for additive approvals. To manage this, the agency implemented a voluntary GRAS notification program to ensure that these ingredients remained safe for their intended use.

The voluntary nature of this system, however, has led to concerns about regulatory oversight. The FDA itself has acknowledged that this guidance “does not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.” Critics argue that manufacturers can exploit this loophole by introducing new additives into food products without formally notifying regulators.

A 2022 study by the Environmental Working Group revealed that since 2000, nearly 99% of newly approved food-contact chemicals were cleared by the food and chemical industries rather than the FDA. Over this 22-year period, food manufacturers requested FDA approval for a new chemical only 10 times, according to the analysis.

“By 1997, FDA had tentatively concluded that it could no longer devote substantial resources to the GRAS affirmation petition process,” the agency states on its website. This led to the establishment of the voluntary notification program, which has since been criticized for lacking sufficient regulatory enforcement.

Kennedy’s move to eliminate GRAS could mark a significant shift in food safety policy, closing a loophole that has allowed manufacturers to introduce additives with minimal oversight.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump intensified a trade war by imposing significant tariffs on the top three U.S. trading partners—Canada, Mexico, and China.

The newly announced tariffs include a 25 percent import tax on Canada and Mexico, while duties on Chinese goods were raised from 10 percent to 20 percent.

These measures will impact more than $1 trillion worth of imported goods. In 2022, these three countries exported a combined $1.4 trillion in goods to the U.S., representing over 5 percent of that year’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Trump has made several tariff-related announcements during his tenure, some of which he later reversed or postponed. However, Tuesday’s decision marks the most significant escalation yet in his broader effort to reshape U.S. trade policy, fulfilling a campaign pledge.

Short-Term Market Reaction

The financial markets reacted negatively to Trump’s latest trade move. On Monday, stock prices plummeted after he stated there was “no room left” for Canada and Mexico to negotiate on tariffs.

The market downturn continued into Tuesday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks major U.S. companies, dropped by more than 685 points, representing a 1.6 percent decline. The S&P 500 index fell by 1.3 percent, while the tech-focused Nasdaq Composite ended the day down by 0.4 percent.

Goldman Sachs estimated that these tariffs, particularly the 25 percent duties on Canada and Mexico and the higher levies on China, would reduce its earnings-per-share forecasts for the S&P 500 by 2 to 3 percent.

Rising Consumer Costs

Businesses and economic analysts have cautioned that Trump’s import duties could lead to higher consumer prices.

“Tariff-induced disruptions risk exacerbating inflation, increasing the cost of essential goods, and placing financial strain on businesses and consumers alike,” the National Association of Wholesale Distributors stated on Tuesday.

Although tariffs do not automatically translate to price hikes, companies can absorb the increased costs or adjust their supply chains. Trump’s 2018 tariffs did not significantly drive inflation as the COVID-19 pandemic did in 2020.

However, the current tariffs could lead to supply chain disruptions in North America, potentially raising consumer prices. A study by the Anderson Economic Group estimated that the price of some vehicles manufactured in North America could rise by as much as $12,000 due to these import taxes.

Economic Consequences

Economic models suggest the new tariffs will slow U.S. economic growth.

According to the Yale Budget Lab, real GDP growth is expected to be 0.6 percentage points lower in 2025 and 0.1 percentage points lower in 2026 because of these tariffs.

Lower-income Americans will likely feel the impact more than wealthier households. “The percent change in disposable income resulting from the tariffs is almost three times as much for households in the second decile by income as it is for households in the top decile,” Yale researchers reported.

The U.S. economy has been performing well in recent quarters, but consumer spending has been slowing amid concerns over persistent inflation. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has projected a contraction in the U.S. economy for the first quarter of the year.

Despite concerns about economic performance, some labor groups see potential benefits. The Teamsters union acknowledged the risks but suggested tariffs could be worth it if they support American industries.

“We support any solution that brings work back to America,” a Teamsters spokesperson told The Hill.

Political and Diplomatic Fallout

Trump campaigned on reducing costs for Americans, capitalizing on voter frustration over inflation. The cost of living was a key issue in the 2024 election.

If the tariffs lead to higher prices and a slowing economy, they could undermine Trump’s economic credibility, which has been one of his strongest advantages with voters.

Even some Republicans have expressed concern about the tariffs’ impact. When asked whether he was worried about their effects, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) responded, “Of course.”

Democrats have seized on the potential economic fallout.

“It’s only taken the president 43 days to wreak havoc on our economy and the American people,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. “The outlook for economic growth has plummeted into the negative, consumer sentiment has plunged, and small businesses and farmers from coast to coast fear what’s to come with his trade war.”

The tariffs could also strain diplomatic relations between the U.S. and its North American neighbors.

Following Trump’s initial tariff announcement in February, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Canadians to avoid vacationing in the U.S.

A recent YouGov poll revealed shifting perceptions between the two countries. Half of Canadians now view the U.S. as “unfriendly” or an “enemy,” while only 6 percent of Americans feel the same way about Canada.

Uncertainty Over the Tariffs’ Future

Trump has a history of imposing tariffs and then reversing them. It remains uncertain whether he will maintain these latest levies.

For example, after he placed tariffs on Chinese shipments worth $800 or less, he reversed the decision two days later when U.S. ports became overwhelmed with undelivered packages.

Many businesses hope Trump will reconsider the latest tariffs as well.

“We urge reconsideration of this policy and a swift end to these tariffs,” said Neil Bradley, the chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a statement on Monday.

Mexico has already signaled plans to retaliate. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum dismissed Trump’s tariff threats as a bluff in the past but stated that Mexico would respond if the measures remain in place.

“We have decided to respond with both tariff and non-tariff measures that I will announce in a public square on Sunday,” Sheinbaum said.

With economic, political, and diplomatic consequences looming, the coming weeks will determine whether these tariffs remain in effect or become another short-lived trade policy shift.

President Donald Trump has introduced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, a move that threatens to escalate into a trade conflict between the United States and its neighboring countries. Goods entering the U.S. from these nations will now face a 25% tax. In response, Canada has announced retaliatory tariffs, and Mexico has stated it will also implement countermeasures.

The three countries have closely connected economies, with supply chains that facilitate the movement of around $2 billion (£1.6 billion) worth of manufactured goods across their borders each day.

Trump has defended the tariffs, saying they are necessary to safeguard American industries. However, many economists caution that these duties could drive up prices for U.S. consumers. This is because the tax is paid by American importers, who may either pass on the increased costs to customers or reduce imports, which would result in a decrease in available products.

Possible Price Increases on Consumer Goods

Automobiles

The cost of cars is expected to rise, with TD Economics estimating an increase of approximately $3,000 per vehicle.

Car manufacturing involves components crossing the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican borders multiple times before final assembly. Several major automakers, including Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, and Honda, rely on this cross-border trade.

With the introduction of tariffs, higher costs incurred on imported parts are likely to be passed on to customers.

“Suffice it to say that disrupting these trends through tariffs… would come with significant costs,” noted Andrew Foran, an economist at TD Economics.

He emphasized that “uninterrupted free trade” in the automotive industry had existed for decades, leading to lower prices for consumers.

Alcoholic Beverages: Beer, Whisky, and Tequila

Popular Mexican beer brands such as Modelo and Corona could become more expensive for U.S. consumers if American importers choose to pass on the additional tax costs. However, companies might also decide to reduce the amount they import instead of raising prices.

Modelo, which became the best-selling beer in the U.S. in 2023, continues to hold the top position.

Spirits face a more complex situation. Since the 1990s, the industry has largely operated without tariffs. Prior to the new tariffs, industry organizations from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico issued a joint statement expressing their “deep concern.”

They pointed out that certain spirits, including Bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila, and Canadian whisky, are “recognized as distinctive products and can only be produced in their designated countries.”

Because production cannot simply be relocated, these beverages may face supply shortages, potentially leading to price hikes. The industry groups also noted that many companies own various spirit brands across all three countries.

Housing Costs

Canada supplies approximately one-third of the softwood lumber used in the U.S. annually. This essential building material will now be subject to the tariffs imposed by Trump. Despite Trump’s claim that the U.S. has “more lumber than we ever use,” the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has urged the administration to exempt building materials, warning that the tariffs could negatively impact housing affordability.

The NAHB has voiced “serious concerns” that tariffs on lumber will drive up the cost of home construction—especially since most U.S. homes are primarily built with wood. The group fears this could deter developers from building new houses.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB stated.

Lumber from Canada is not the only material at risk. A second potential threat now looms over most timber and lumber imports into the U.S., regardless of their country of origin.

On March 1, Trump ordered an investigation into whether additional tariffs should be applied to lumber and timber imports from all countries or if incentives should be introduced to boost domestic production. The findings of this inquiry are expected by the end of the year.

Maple Syrup

For American households, one of the most noticeable effects of the trade dispute with Canada may be the rising cost of Canadian maple syrup, according to Thomas Sampson, an associate professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Canada’s maple syrup industry is valued at over a billion dollars and accounts for 75% of global production. Approximately 90% of this syrup comes from Quebec, home to the world’s only strategic maple syrup reserve, established 24 years ago.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” Sampson said.

He added, “If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the U.S., but that are produced using inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up.”

Fuel Prices

Canada is the leading foreign supplier of crude oil to the United States. Official trade data indicates that between January and November last year, 61% of U.S. oil imports came from Canada.

While the new tariffs impose a 25% tax on Canadian imports, energy imports will face a lower 10% tariff.

Although the U.S. does not have a shortage of oil, its refineries are specifically designed to process “heavier” crude oil, which primarily comes from Canada and, to a lesser extent, Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel production,” according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

If Canada retaliates by reducing crude oil exports to the U.S., gasoline prices at the pump could increase as a result.

Avocados

One of the most significant potential price increases for U.S. consumers involves avocados.

Mexico, known for its warm and humid climate, is the primary supplier of avocados to the U.S., accounting for nearly 90% of the American avocado market each year.

Should tariffs be imposed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has cautioned that the cost of avocados could surge, affecting prices for popular avocado-based dishes like guacamole.

Conclusion

The new tariffs imposed by President Trump on Canada and Mexico have sparked concerns about potential price increases on several consumer goods, including cars, alcoholic beverages, housing materials, maple syrup, fuel, and avocados. While the administration argues that these measures will protect American industries, economists warn that they may ultimately burden U.S. consumers with higher costs. With Canada and Mexico already planning retaliatory tariffs, the trade dispute could escalate further, impacting prices and supply chains across North America.

President Donald Trump has issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States.

Under this order, government agencies and federally funded organizations now have the option to decide whether they will offer services and documents in languages other than English. This move overturns a policy introduced by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, which required such entities to provide language assistance to individuals who do not speak English.

“Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society,” the order states.

This decision marks the first time in nearly 250 years that the U.S. has designated an official language at the federal level.

However, the order clarifies that agencies are not required to eliminate or discontinue any language assistance services they currently provide.

“In welcoming new Americans, a policy of encouraging the learning and adoption of our national language will make the United States a shared home and empower new citizens to achieve the American dream,” it further states.

The executive order also argues that proficiency in English is beneficial both economically and socially, stating, “Speaking English not only opens doors economically, but it helps newcomers engage in their communities, participate in national traditions, and give back to our society.”

At the same time, it acknowledges America’s multilingual history, emphasizing that the country has a “long tradition of multilingual American citizens who have learned English and passed it to their children for generations to come.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 68 million residents out of the country’s 340 million people speak a language other than English at home. Among these, there are over 160 Native American languages.

Spanish, various Chinese languages, and Arabic are among the most widely spoken languages in the U.S. after English, according to Census Bureau data.

Efforts to declare English as the official language have been made in the past, particularly by Republican lawmakers. Members of the House introduced legislation in 2021 seeking to establish English as the official national language, but the bill did not pass.

Critics of such measures have argued that there is no need for an official language, as English is already widely spoken across the U.S. They have also expressed concerns that this move could lead to discrimination against individuals who do not speak English fluently.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made references to non-English languages while advocating for stricter immigration policies.

“It’s the craziest thing – they have languages that nobody in this country has ever heard of. It’s a very horrible thing,” he told his supporters in February 2024.

Across the world, around 180 countries have designated official national languages, and many of them recognize multiple official languages.

Some nations, including the United Kingdom, do not have an official language.

Currently, more than 30 U.S. states have already designated English as their official language. Additionally, Alaska and Hawaii have granted official status to several indigenous languages.

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City on Saturday, aiming to make a political comeback. In a 17-minute video posted on his website, Cuomo delivered his message while images of the city played alongside him.

“We know that today our New York City is in trouble,” Cuomo said as footage of homeless individuals, graffiti-covered streets, and subway stations appeared on the screen. “You see it in the empty storefronts, the grime, the migrant influx, and the random violence. The city just feels threatening, out of control, and in crisis.”

Cuomo’s decision to enter the already crowded mayoral race represents his attempt to reestablish himself in politics following his resignation in 2021 due to a sexual harassment scandal. Eleven women accused him of misconduct, allegations that were detailed in a report by the state attorney general. Cuomo denied the accusations at the time.

His candidacy sets up a direct challenge to incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who has faced increased scrutiny. Calls for Adams to step down have grown louder, especially after the Trump-led Department of Justice dropped corruption charges against him. Adams has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and his campaign declined to comment on Cuomo’s announcement.

Since leaving office, Cuomo has largely remained out of the public eye. However, CNN previously reported that he and his team had been laying the groundwork for a mayoral run for months, particularly in light of Adams’ recent controversies. Last week, signs of his intentions became clearer when allies launched a super PAC under the name “Fix the City,” according to State Board of Elections records.

Opponents Respond Swiftly

Cuomo’s announcement was met with immediate pushback from his competitors. There are at least eight other candidates in the race, and some lawmakers who oppose his return to office have been working behind the scenes to recruit additional challengers to counter his bid.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander criticized Cuomo’s campaign, calling him an “agent of chaos.”

“The greatest city in the world deserves better than this,” Lander stated.

Scott Stringer, who ran for mayor in 2021 and is again a candidate, also responded with a video, arguing that Cuomo has always prioritized his own interests over the needs of New Yorkers.

“Being mayor of New York may help Andrew Cuomo, but it doesn’t do a damn thing for New Yorkers,” Stringer said.

Meanwhile, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who led the investigation into the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo, has reportedly been working to encourage City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams to enter the race. While Adrienne Adams has yet to officially announce her candidacy, she recently opened a campaign committee account, signaling she is seriously considering joining the contest.

Shortly after making his campaign announcement, Cuomo hit the campaign trail, beginning with a visit to the headquarters of the 32BJ SEIU union in Manhattan for a candidate screening. He later stopped for lunch at a Dominican restaurant in the Kingsbridge section of the Bronx. Videos posted on social media showed Cuomo shaking hands and greeting diners.

Leveraging Political Experience

Cuomo, the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, has spent decades in politics. Before running for office, he served as President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He initially ran for New York governor in 2002 but dropped out after a racially charged primary against then-State Comptroller Carl McCall. The experience was a major political setback, which Cuomo has described as one of the lowest points in his life.

He later rebounded by successfully running for New York attorney general in 2006 and then for governor in 2010.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cuomo gained national prominence with his daily televised briefings, which became must-watch events for Americans under lockdown. However, his handling of the pandemic came under scrutiny, particularly a directive that required nursing homes to accept recovering COVID-19 patients. His administration faced accusations of manipulating data to conceal the impact of that policy on nursing home deaths.

Allegations of sexual harassment against Cuomo first emerged in December 2020. Charlotte Bennett, a former aide, claimed Cuomo asked her inappropriate questions about her sex life and mentioned his openness to relationships with younger women. Another former aide, Lindsey Boylan, alleged that Cuomo forcibly kissed her during a private meeting in his office.

Cuomo denied any wrongdoing but acknowledged that his comments may have been misinterpreted.

“I never touched anyone inappropriately,” he said. “I never knew at the time that I was making anyone feel uncomfortable.”

Boylan responded to Cuomo’s mayoral bid by stating, “New York City deserves better.” In a Vanity Fair article, she warned voters that Cuomo’s leadership could be worse than Adams’.

A Bid for Redemption

Cuomo’s return to politics has been in the works for months. According to a source familiar with his strategy, his campaign is not about apologizing but about presenting himself as the right leader to tackle the city’s problems. With concerns over crime, public safety, and affordability dominating voters’ minds, Cuomo believes his experience makes him the best candidate for the job.

The political landscape has shifted since his departure. Although opponents are certain to highlight his past controversies, Cuomo has recently secured some legal victories that may help him reshape his narrative. Charlotte Bennett dropped her lawsuit against him in December, just before she was scheduled to be deposed. However, she later accused Cuomo of using the legal process to intimidate her and her loved ones.

“Throughout this extraordinarily painful two-year case, I’ve many times believed that I’d be better off dead than endure more of his litigation abuse,” Bennett said. “I desperately need to live my life. That’s the choice I am making today.”

After the case was dropped, Cuomo quickly announced his intention to sue Bennett for defamation.

Cuomo’s campaign is relying on a close-knit team of veteran aides, including Melissa DeRosa, his former secretary, and Richard Azzopardi, his longtime spokesperson. He has also sought advice from campaign strategists like Chris Coffey and Steven Cohen, who previously worked in his attorney general’s office.

With only four months until the primary, Cuomo’s candidacy adds a significant twist to the race. He has nearly $8 million in campaign funds that he may be able to use, giving him a financial edge over his opponents.

A Familiar Strategy

Despite never running for mayor before, Cuomo understands New York City’s political dynamics. Winning requires building a coalition of Black and Latino voters, union members, and moderate White voters. While New York City remains a Democratic stronghold, the city’s political climate has shifted slightly rightward in recent years, as some voters have grown disenchanted with progressive policies.

In his campaign video, Cuomo does not directly criticize Trump but expresses a willingness to collaborate with the federal government.

“I have worked with President Trump in many different situations, and I hope President Trump remembers his hometown and works with us to make it better,” Cuomo says.

Although he promotes his leadership experience, Cuomo faces significant obstacles, including his past scandals and the city’s ranked-choice voting system, which may complicate his path to victory.

Cuomo frames himself as a moderate Democrat capable of addressing New York City’s crisis, emphasizing public safety and economic recovery. His proposals include expanding the NYPD’s presence in subways, improving public housing, and regulating e-bikes.

“We know that today our New York City is in trouble. You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person or when the anxiety rises in your chest as you walk into the subway,” Cuomo states. “The city just feels threatening, out of control, and in crisis.”

Without mentioning Adams by name, Cuomo criticizes what he calls “failed Democratic leadership” and the absence of “intelligent action” in city government.

His entrance into the race ensures that the 2025 mayoral election will be one of the most competitive in decades.

President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda took a significant step forward on Tuesday as House Republicans managed to overcome internal divisions over spending to pass a crucial framework for a multitrillion-dollar plan covering defense, energy, immigration, and tax policy.

The approval of this framework is a vital milestone, as it allows Republicans to utilize a complex legislative process known as reconciliation. This tool enables them to bypass a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, but they first had to come to an agreement on a budget blueprint to unlock it.

“We got it done,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters following the vote. “This is the first important step in opening up the reconciliation process. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, but we are going to deliver the America First agenda.”

With a slim majority in the House, Republicans needed nearly unanimous support from their members. The measure ultimately passed by a narrow 217-215 margin, with just one Republican opposing the budget resolution.

Tuesday’s vote represents an early victory in what is expected to be a long and challenging road to passing the GOP’s policy priorities. The Senate, which is also under Republican control, had already advanced its own budget reconciliation plan, frustrated by the delays in the House. Now, both chambers must pass an identical bill to move the process forward.

At the start of the day, GOP leaders were still working to consolidate support. Johnson and his team spent weeks engaged in difficult negotiations, struggling to reconcile the demands of various factions within their party.

Fiscal conservatives pushed for deep spending cuts, while other Republicans voiced concerns about reductions affecting Medicaid, the government insurance program that provides health coverage for millions of low-income and disabled Americans.

The House’s budget proposal includes a funding boost for securing the southern border, an increase in military spending, and an increase in the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion.

Additionally, the plan calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. These include an extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, as well as other tax proposals Trump championed during his campaign, such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits.

Spending Cut Compromise

To advance the budget proposal to this stage, Johnson had to concede to demands from some conservative lawmakers for $2 trillion in spending reductions. However, the exact details of these cuts will be determined later by various House committees.

For instance, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has been assigned the task of finding $880 billion in savings. Given that this committee oversees spending on major programs like Medicare and Medicaid, moderate Republicans worry that essential social safety net programs could be targeted for cuts.

Democrats quickly seized on these concerns, particularly regarding Medicaid, which serves low-income, elderly, and disabled Americans.

“The House Republican budget resolution will set in motion the largest Medicaid cut in American history,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters after the vote.

Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, several House members had expressed reservations. However, in the end, only one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted against the resolution.

On Monday, Massie voiced his opposition in a social media post, writing, “If the Republican budget passes, the deficit gets worse, not better.” His statement drew a response from billionaire Elon Musk, who replied, “That sounds bad.”

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, credited Speaker Johnson for successfully rallying enough support to pass the resolution. Arrington acknowledged that there were multiple holdouts before the vote but said Johnson was instrumental in securing the outcome.

“I think that small margin forces you to work together,” Arrington said. “This was a historic election. We know this is a monumental opportunity for us to course correct, for us to reverse course on the last four years, to be frank, and nobody wants to miss that. And everybody had to make some sacrifice or some pain involved.”

A federal judge on Thursday declined a request from a coalition of government employee unions to prevent the Trump administration from proceeding with significant reductions to the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that federal law requires the unions to bring their case before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which handles labor disputes within the federal government, rather than pursuing legal action in a federal district court.

The ruling marks another legal victory for the Trump administration’s Justice Department, which has been defending against multiple lawsuits challenging various executive orders, including those aimed at reducing government spending and restructuring federal agencies.

“The first month of President Trump’s second administration has been defined by an onslaught of executive actions that have caused, some say by design, disruption and even chaos in widespread quarters of American society,” Cooper wrote.

He further noted, “Affected citizens and their advocates have challenged many of these actions on an emergency basis in this Court and others across the country. Certain of the President’s actions have been temporarily halted; others have been permitted to proceed, at least for the time being. These mixed results should surprise no one.”

The unions’ lawsuit contested the administration’s decision to terminate a large number of probationary employees, its broader plans for additional layoffs—commonly referred to as a reduction in force—and its offer of buyouts to most federal employees.

A separate lawsuit previously sought to block the buyouts but was dismissed by another federal judge. However, litigation concerning the dismissal of probationary employees remains ongoing, as a coalition of unions filed a new lawsuit on Thursday to challenge those terminations.

The case was brought by several unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the National Federation of Federal Employees, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the United Auto Workers.

These unions argued that the administration’s workforce reduction strategy violates both the constitutional separation of powers and the established regulations governing how federal job cuts should be carried out.

Cooper did not weigh in on the merits of these claims, instead determining that the unions had filed their challenge in the incorrect venue.

“The Court acknowledges that district court review of these sweeping executive actions may be more expedient. But NTEU provides no reason why it could not seek relief from the FLRA on behalf of a class of plaintiffs and admits that it would ask other agencies to follow an administrative judge’s ruling in its favor,” Cooper wrote.

Meanwhile, President Trump recently dismissed Susan Grundmann, the Democratic-appointed chair of the FLRA. Grundmann, however, is contesting her removal in court.

The Republican-led Senate voted on Thursday to confirm Kash Patel as the new director of the FBI, despite ongoing concerns regarding his qualifications and temperament to lead the country’s most influential law enforcement agency.

Patel, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a vocal critic of the FBI, secured confirmation with a narrow 51-49 vote. Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski broke ranks with their party and joined all Democrats in opposing his appointment.

His confirmation marks a significant milestone in Patel’s career, which has included roles as a public defender, federal prosecutor, and congressional aide. During Trump’s first term, he served as a national security official and later became a prominent figure in right-wing media, frequently appearing on conservative podcasts while maintaining strong loyalty to Trump.

Republicans embraced Patel’s confirmation, arguing that the FBI has unfairly targeted conservatives in recent years and that Patel is the right person to address these concerns.

“Kash is the right man to clean up the FBI to restore Americans’ confidence and trust that the FBI is not a political organization, it is a law enforcement organization,” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., stated in a post on X.

Despite Republican backing, Patel’s confirmation faced intense resistance from Democrats, who questioned his ability—and willingness—to uphold the FBI’s traditional independence from the White House.

The slim margin of his confirmation vote underscored these concerns. In contrast, his three immediate predecessors—Christopher Wray, James Comey, and Robert Mueller—all received overwhelming bipartisan support, each securing at least 92 votes in their confirmations.

Democrats Highlight “Red Flags”

On Thursday morning, Senate Democrats from the Judiciary Committee gathered outside FBI headquarters to publicly denounce Patel’s appointment.

“Mr. Patel will be a political and national security disaster, if confirmed,” warned Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat.

“I’m convinced he has neither the experience, the judgment nor the temperament to lead the FBI,” Durbin continued. “My Senate Republican colleagues are willfully ignoring myriad red flags about Mr. Patel, especially his recurring instinct to threaten retribution against his perceived enemies. This is an extremely dangerous flaw for someone who seeks to lead the nation’s most powerful domestic investigative agency for the next 10 years.”

Historically, FBI directors are appointed to serve a 10-year term, but neither of Patel’s most recent predecessors completed theirs. Trump dismissed James Comey in 2017 and subsequently appointed Christopher Wray to replace him.

Following Trump’s election victory last November, he nominated Patel to take over the FBI, effectively forcing Wray out of the position.

Unlike Comey and Wray, Patel has no prior experience as a senior law enforcement official, a factor that has fueled doubts about his qualifications for the role.

However, opposition to his nomination has been more centered on his allegiance to Trump and his past remarks about dismantling what he refers to as the “deep state.” Critics have raised concerns over his rhetoric about targeting political opponents, including those within the FBI.

During one podcast appearance, Patel vowed to shut down FBI headquarters on his first day and convert it into a “museum of the deep state.”

During his confirmation hearing, Patel attempted to downplay concerns regarding his past statements, telling senators, “Any accusations leveled against me that I would somehow put political bias before the Constitution are grotesquely unfair.”

A Bureau in Transition

Patel assumes leadership of the FBI at a turbulent moment for the agency. In recent weeks, the newly installed Justice Department leadership has forced out at least eight senior FBI officials and demanded a list of all personnel involved in investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol—a probe that Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized.

These developments have sparked fears within the bureau that mass firings could be imminent as part of a broader retaliation effort. The FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents most FBI agents, has taken legal action to block the release of names of FBI employees who were identified to the Justice Department.

Despite the tensions, the association acknowledged Patel’s confirmation on Thursday.

“We look forward to partnering with him as he leads the Bureau forward in our shared mission to keep America safe,” FBIAA President Natalie Bara said in a statement.

“As the new leadership team considers and implements reform measures, the FBIAA stands ready to serve as a valuable resource, ensuring that Special Agents can continue safeguarding the American people from emerging threats while upholding the Constitution.”

Defense stocks saw a sharp decline Thursday afternoon following remarks from President Donald Trump, who suggested that the United States could significantly reduce its defense spending.

Speaking at the White House, Trump proposed that U.S. military expenditures might be slashed by half in the future. His comments arose while discussing the possibility of holding a defense spending conference with China and Russia.

“At some point, when things settle down, I’m going to meet with China and I’m going to meet with Russia, in particular those two, and I’m going to say there’s no reason for us to be spending almost $1 trillion on the military … and I’m going to say we can spend this on other things,” Trump stated.

He further elaborated, “When we straighten it all out, then one of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that.”

Following Trump’s remarks, defense stocks that had previously been trading higher in the day quickly turned downward. Shares of Lockheed Martin dropped 1.6%, Northrop Grumman fell by 3.4%, and General Dynamics declined 2.1%.

Throughout his 2024 campaign and the early days of his presidency, Trump has sent mixed signals regarding military spending.

On one hand, he has enlisted billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to identify areas where government spending, including defense, could be trimmed. Additionally, Trump has advocated for a swift resolution to the war in Ukraine, a conflict that has led to significant purchases of American weaponry.

Conversely, Trump has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of maintaining a strong military. He has signed an executive order to explore the development of an “Iron Dome of America” missile defense system and has frequently praised U.S. military capabilities. On Thursday, he reiterated, “Right now, people are confused by a number of different crosscurrents” on defense spending.

TD Cowen policy analyst Roman Schweizer commented on the situation, telling CNBC last week, “Right now, people are confused by a number of different crosscurrents” regarding U.S. military expenditures.

Many Americans believe the federal government is overspending, yet polling suggests that a significant number, including Republicans, think funding for major programs like Social Security is insufficient.

Surveys from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicate that as former President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk advocate for sweeping budget cuts—including reductions in humanitarian aid and potential cuts to the Department of Education and the military—many Americans may not support their approach to trimming federal expenditures.

A January AP-NORC poll found that about two-thirds of Americans believe the government is spending too little on Social Security and education. Additionally, roughly six in ten think more funding should go toward assistance for the poor, and a similar percentage say that Medicare—the health insurance program for seniors—is underfunded. Many also believe Medicaid lacks adequate financial support. Meanwhile, about half of respondents feel that border security is not receiving enough funding.

This presents an ongoing dilemma for lawmakers: while most Americans believe the government isn’t allocating enough money to key programs, they also broadly support budget cuts. A March 2023 AP-NORC poll revealed that six in ten U.S. adults thought the government was spending too much overall.

Foreign Aid Seen as a Primary Area of Overspending

One area where Americans largely agree on overspending is foreign aid. The 2023 AP-NORC poll showed that a majority of Americans believe too much money is directed to other countries.

Approximately seven in ten U.S. adults said the government allocated excessive funds to “assistance to other countries.” This sentiment was particularly strong among Republicans—nearly nine in ten thought foreign aid was overfunded, compared to just over half of Democrats.

Richard Tunnell, a 33-year-old veteran from Huntsville, Texas, believes the U.S. intervenes too frequently in international affairs. An independent voter who supported Trump in the last election, Tunnell appreciates Trump’s “America First” agenda.

“Americans need to worry about Americans,” Tunnell said. “There’s atrocities happening on American soil just as much as there is on foreign soil. You know, if we can’t clean up our own house, why the hell are we trying to clean up somebody else’s house?”

However, surveys suggest that many Americans overestimate how much of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. Research from KFF found that, on average, Americans believe foreign aid accounts for 31% of the budget, when in reality, it is closer to 1% or less.

Bipartisan Agreement on Social Security and Medicare

Few Americans, regardless of political affiliation, think the country spends too much on Social Security or Medicare. However, opinions diverge when it comes to military spending, border security, Medicaid, and assistance programs for low-income individuals.

About one-third of U.S. adults believe the military receives excessive funding, while another third think the budget is about right. The remaining third feel the military is underfunded. A partisan divide is evident: most Republicans argue that military funding is too low, while nearly half of Democrats say it receives too much money.

Jeremy Shouse, a 38-year-old Democrat from Durham, North Carolina, believes social programs should receive as much funding as the military.

“I think it’s really a slap in our faces as Americans,” Shouse said, expressing frustration over the lack of funding for programs like Medicaid, which he has personally relied on.

“When it comes down to school, Medicaid, any type of government assistance programs, the money is just kind of not there,” he added. “Not like it is for the military or the Army.”

A strong majority of Democrats believe too little is spent on assistance for the poor, education, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When it comes to border security, Democrats are more divided—about four in ten feel the funding is appropriate, while the remaining respondents are evenly split between those who believe it’s too high and those who think it’s too low. Regarding federal law enforcement agencies such as the CIA and FBI, most Democrats feel funding levels are about right.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to support increased funding for border security, Social Security, and the military. About eight in ten Republicans believe the government allocates too little to border security, while roughly two-thirds say Social Security needs more funding.

Despite these divisions, the overall data suggests a paradox: while Americans frequently argue that the federal government overspends, many simultaneously believe that crucial domestic programs remain underfunded.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. officially took office as Secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department on Thursday after a narrow Senate confirmation vote, placing him in charge of a $1.7 trillion budget that oversees vaccine policies, food safety regulations, and health insurance programs that impact nearly half of the U.S. population.

The Senate voted 52-48 in favor of Kennedy, with nearly all Republicans backing former President Donald Trump’s nominee despite reservations about his controversial views on vaccines. Every Democrat opposed his confirmation.

The only Republican to break ranks was Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who had polio as a child. His opposition mirrored his stance against Trump’s previous nominees for Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence.

“I’m a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world,” McConnell stated. “I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles.”

Shortly after taking office, Kennedy appeared on Fox News with Laura Ingraham and announced his intention to establish a more rigorous system to monitor vaccine side effects.

Republicans have largely embraced Kennedy’s approach to public health, particularly his focus on tackling chronic illnesses like obesity.

“We’ve got to get into the business of making America healthy again,” said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who believes Kennedy will introduce a “fresh perspective” to the role.

During his swearing-in ceremony at the Oval Office, Kennedy was accompanied by his wife, other family members, and several members of Congress. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch administered the oath. Reflecting on his connection to the White House, Kennedy recalled visiting as a child in 1961, when his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, was in office.

Trump announced that Kennedy would lead a new commission to study chronic diseases, an initiative Kennedy praised. He described Trump as a “pivotal historical figure” and expressed gratitude for his role in his life and career.

Kennedy, 71, has long been in the public eye due to his family legacy and personal tragedies. Over the years, he has cultivated a dedicated following through his outspoken views on food safety, chemicals, and vaccines—stances that have at times veered into extreme territory.

His influence grew significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic when he devoted much of his efforts to a nonprofit organization that filed lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. He also leveraged social media to foster skepticism about vaccines and the government agencies responsible for promoting them.

Despite his history of questioning vaccine safety, Kennedy, with Trump’s endorsement, argued that he was in a unique position to restore trust in public health institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., voiced optimism about Kennedy’s potential to reshape the health care system, saying he hoped Kennedy “goes wild” in curbing medical costs and improving overall public health.

However, before offering his support, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, sought assurances from Kennedy that he would not alter existing vaccine recommendations.

During his confirmation hearings, Senate Democrats repeatedly challenged Kennedy to disavow the long-debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. Some legislators also raised concerns about whether Kennedy could personally profit from altering vaccine policies or weakening legal protections for pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines.

Financial disclosures revealed that Kennedy earned more than $850,000 last year through a referral arrangement with a law firm that has sued the manufacturers of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps prevent cervical cancer. To address potential conflicts of interest, Kennedy pledged that if confirmed, he would redirect the earnings from this arrangement to his son.

Kennedy assumes leadership of HHS amid a sweeping federal restructuring led by billionaire Elon Musk. This overhaul has resulted in the suspension—at least temporarily—of billions of dollars in public health funding, leaving thousands of federal employees uncertain about their job security.

On Friday, the NIH announced that it would limit billions of dollars allocated to medical research, particularly in areas such as cancer and Alzheimer’s treatment.

Kennedy has also called for a major shake-up within the NIH, FDA, and CDC. Last year, he vowed to terminate 600 employees at the NIH, which serves as the nation’s largest financial supporter of biomedical research.

In his Fox News interview, Kennedy reiterated his plans to overhaul staffing at HHS and its affiliated agencies, targeting officials responsible for what he views as poor decisions regarding nutrition guidelines and Alzheimer’s treatments.

“I have a list in my head,” Kennedy said, referring to potential dismissals within the agency.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled Monday that the Trump administration is violating a court order by continuing to freeze funding for federal programs.

In a strongly worded decision, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who is overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia, ordered the administration to restore and resume the frozen funding immediately.

This ruling presents a significant challenge to recent suggestions that if President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and the Department of Government Efficiency’s leader, Elon Musk, disagree with a judge’s order, they may choose to disregard it. Michel Paradis, a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School, noted the importance of the ruling.

Over the past few days, Vance wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” while Musk signaled his support for an X user’s suggestion that Trump openly defy court rulings. Meanwhile, Trump stated over the weekend that judges should not have the authority to challenge recent actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Commenting on Monday’s court order, Paradis told Business Insider, “That’s some tough language. The judge is not messing around.” He added, “It’s return fire, to the extent that the Trump administration has declared that neither Congress nor the courts are allowed to question his authority.”

McConnell’s order responded to evidence presented by the plaintiff states, which showed that the funding freeze—previously deemed “likely unconstitutional” and causing “irreparable harm”—was still in effect despite the court’s prior ruling.

“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” McConnell wrote.

The court was presented with descriptions of continued disruptions in funding to the plaintiff states, including allocations from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Programs such as Head Start, which provides early childhood education, were among those affected.

“The Defendants must immediately restore frozen funding” while the court continues to consider the states’ claims and the administration’s arguments in favor of the freeze, McConnell’s order stated.

The Trump administration swiftly responded by filing a notice to appeal both the judge’s original January 31 order and Monday’s ruling.

Asked whether the administration would comply with the latest order, a White House spokesperson criticized the legal challenges to Trump’s executive actions.

“Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful,” said Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary.

“Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people,” he added, stating that voters had chosen Trump to “restore common-sense policies.”

Paradis suggested that if the court order continues to be ignored, McConnell could find the defendants—including Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—in contempt of court.

Trump is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. However, Paradis noted that holding a sitting president in contempt presents a “constitutionally complex issue” and remains “a totally open question.”

“There are plenty of people who say that just as you can’t prosecute the president, you can’t hold them in contempt because it creates a separation of powers problem,” he explained.